On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Ron Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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)! >
Maybe ... but I figured it would take more time to fully explain what I meant by "rewrite the docs" in an email than it would to actually rewrite them. =) > > 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]. Hmm, okay. When I was running my tests in psql I came away with the impression that the T was required in the "alternative format". I might be mistaken. I'll run some further tests a little later on. > * 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>. > Ah, the <sect3> needs to go _inside_ the <sect2>, whereas I originally had just changed the tags and left it in the same position (after the <sect2>). I fixed this in my working copy but I must have forgotten to produce a fresh patch after doing so. Cheers, BJ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
