From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | greg(at)turnstep(dot)com |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] XML ouput for psql |
Date: | 2003-03-03 17:55:12 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.44.0303031752340.2513-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-03-03 18:17:01 | Re: Yet another open-source benchmark |
Previous Message | Brandon Craig Rhodes | 2003-03-03 17:41:21 | Re: problem importing languages in CVS tip |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | cbbrowne | 2003-03-03 23:57:26 | Re: [PATCHES] XML ouput for psql |
Previous Message | Oliver Elphick | 2003-03-03 16:26:49 | Re: psql patch for datestyle |