greg(at)turnstep(dot)com writes:

> I don't agree with this: XML and XHTML are two different things.

No one claimed anything to the contrary.

> We could certainly upgrade the HTML portion, but I am pretty sure that
> the XML standard calls for this format:
>
> <columnname>data here</columnname>

The XML standard does not call for any table format.  But a number of
table formats have been established within the XML framework.  Some of
them are formatting-oriented (e.g., the HTML model, or CALS which is used
in DocBook) and some of them are processing-oriented (e.g., SQL/XML).
Which do we need?  And which do we need from psql in particular (keeping
in mind that psql is primarily for interactive use and shell-scripting)?
In any case, it should most likely be a standard table model and not a
hand-crafted one.

(If, for whatever reason, we go the "processing-oriented" route, then I
claim that there should not be a different output with and without \x
mode.)

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

• Re: XML ouput for psql at 2003-02-28 15:03:14 from greg

Responses

• Re: [PATCHES] XML ouput for psql at 2003-03-03 23:57:26 from cbbrowne
• Re: XML ouput for psql at 2003-03-04 19:50:12 from greg

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: scott.marlowe	Date: 2003-03-03 18:17:01
	Subject: Re: Yet another open-source benchmark
Previous:	From: Brandon Craig Rhodes	Date: 2003-03-03 17:41:21
	Subject: Re: problem importing languages in CVS tip

pgsql-patches by date

Next:	From: cbbrowne	Date: 2003-03-03 23:57:26
	Subject: Re: [PATCHES] XML ouput for psql
Previous:	From: Oliver Elphick	Date: 2003-03-03 16:26:49
	Subject: Re: psql patch for datestyle