X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 285939FA333 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:24:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 92412-07 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:24:09 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1BD49FB1DD for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 13:24:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8GGO4gX026556; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:24:04 -0400 (EDT) To: nikolay@samokhvalov.com, "Peter Eisentraut" cc: "Bruce Momjian" , PostgreSQL-development , PostgreSQL-documentation Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New XML section for documentation In-reply-to: <3432.1158340826@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <200608261620.k7QGKn729150@momjian.us> <200608262041.33396.peter_e@gmx.net> <3432.1158340826@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane message dated "Fri, 15 Sep 2006 13:20:26 -0400" Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 12:24:04 -0400 Message-ID: <26555.1158423844@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.105 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200609/15 X-Sequence-Number: 3702 I wrote: > ISTM the right answer is to add xml_is_well_formed() in this release > and have xml_valid as an alias for it, with documentation explaining > that xml_valid is deprecated and will be removed in the next release. Not hearing any objection, I've done this. > His patch also adds an xpath_array() function --- what do people > think about that? It's well past feature freeze ... now we've always > been laxer about contrib than the core code, but still I'm inclined > to say that that function should wait for 8.3. I didn't add xpath_array(), but am still open to doing it if there is any consensus in favor of it. regards, tom lane