Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I am forwarding it to improve the chances of it being delivered ...  The
> patch in the fwd is not a nice MIME part but it should work without
> problem anyway.

I'm not sure why anyone would want *both* xml and regular output
produced at once.  The patch's treatment of name quoting seems both
inconsistent and highly unlikely to be correct (how does XML deal
with embedded quotes in attribute values, anyway?).  The submitter
appears to have no clue about the maintenance details required when
adding a field to a Node struct.

But the big question is: where's the DTD?  Has he even tried to design
a sane XML representation, or just emitted whatever was convenient given
the existing code structure?  I'm fairly suspicious that a patch that
doesn't rearrange the existing code at all is probably not producing
the ideal XML structure.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to