Chapman Flack <c...@anastigmatix.net> writes:
> What I was doing in the patch is the reverse: parsing with the expectation
> of CONTENT to see if a DTD gets tripped over. It isn't allowed for an
> element to precede a DTD, so that approach can be expected to fail fast
> if the other branch needs to be taken.
Ah, right. I don't have any problem with trying the CONTENT approach
before the DOCUMENT approach rather than vice-versa. What I was concerned
about was adding a lot of assumptions about exactly how libxml would
report the failure. IMO a maximally-safe patch would just rearrange
things we're already doing without adding new things.
> But a quick pre-scan for the same thing would have the same property,
> without the libxml dependencies that bother you here. Watch this space.
Do we need a pre-scan at all?
regards, tom lane
