From owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Mar 16 14:12:56 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-geom@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B5AA1065675
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jh@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi
	[195.197.172.116])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B9DE8FC16
	for <freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>; Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from a91-153-117-195.elisa-laajakaista.fi
	(a91-153-117-195.elisa-laajakaista.fi [91.153.117.195])
	by gw02.mail.saunalahti.fi (Postfix) with SMTP id 7DE66139AFF;
	Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:12:52 +0200 (EET)
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:12:51 +0200
From: Jaakko Heinonen <jh@FreeBSD.org>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Message-ID: <20100316141251.GA3010@a91-153-117-195.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <20100313083551.GB966@a91-153-117-195.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
	<hnm6gb$qr7$1@dough.gmane.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <hnm6gb$qr7$1@dough.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Cc: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Escape unsafe characters for kern.geom.confxml XML dump
X-BeenThere: freebsd-geom@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: GEOM-specific discussions and implementations
	<freebsd-geom.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-geom>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-geom@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-geom>,
	<mailto:freebsd-geom-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:12:56 -0000

On 2010-03-15, Ivan Voras wrote:
> Wouldn't it be slightly better (it's not important, really), to use HTML 
> "entities" instead - &amp; &gt; &lt; &apos; &quot; ?

It's probably a matter of taste. I think I prefer to keep the patch
simpler.

-- 
Jaakko