John Gray wrote on
Friday, January 27, 2006 12:24 PM
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
>
>> Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
>> wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
>> function that is part of that module u
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:21, John Gray wrote:
> I know that - my point was just that when I was naming the functions, I
> (perhaps foolishly, in hindsight) decided that xml_wellformed seemed a
> longish name for a basic function. The README does in fact state that it
> checks well-formedness and n
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:32 -0800, Roger Hand wrote:
> John Gray wrote on
> Friday, January 27, 2006 12:24 PM
> > On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
> >
> >> Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
> >> wondering what is the definition of "valid" th
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
> Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
> wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
> function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
> W3C definition of "valid"
Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
W3C definition of "valid" XML (is there an implicit DTD?) Maybe it is
more akin to "well-for
