> 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
(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
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
In response to
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|