Brendan Jurd wrote:
Reviewing this patch now; I'm working from the 'iso8601' branch in ... I thought I'd post a patch of my own (against your branch) and accompany it with a few explanatory notes.
Wow thanks! That's very helpful (though it might have been more fair to your time if you just kicked it back to me saying "rewrite the docs" so they make sense)! I've applied them with a couple minor changes. * If ISO 8601 5.5.3.1.d's statement "The designator T shall be absent if all of the time components are absent." also applies to 5.5.4.2.2; then I think the 'T' needed to be inside the <optional> tags, so I moved it there. The link to the spec's below[1]. * There was a <sect2> that the patch changed to a <sect3>, and with that change I get an error: openjade:datatype.sgml:2306:31:E: document type does not allow element "SECT3" here so I changed it back to a <sect2>. You can see my changes to your patch on gitweb here: http://tinyurl.com/6crks6 and see how they got applied after your patch here http://tinyurl.com/685hla I think I've updated my website, my git, and the cleanup patch to include these changes now.
Most of these changes are of a highly subjective nature. I think they are improvements, but someone else might prefer the way it was before I got my hands dirty. Please consider the changes in my patch a set of suggestions for making the documentation on this feature a little easier to digest. You're welcome to take or leave them as you see fit.
They're clearly improvements. I'm a total novice when it comes to writing docs. [1] http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/4021199/ISO_8601_2004_E.zip?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=4021199 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
