xml_valid function
Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
W3C definition of "valid" XML (is there an implicit DTD?) Maybe it is
more akin to "well-formed"?
George
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
W3C definition of "valid" XML (is there an implicit DTD?) Maybe it is
more akin to "well-formed"?
It is indeed well-formed. That just seemed a long name for the function!
Regards
John
John Gray wrote on
Friday, January 27, 2006 12:24 PM
On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
W3C definition of "valid" XML (is there an implicit DTD?) Maybe it is
more akin to "well-formed"?It is indeed well-formed. That just seemed a long name for the function!
John
Valid means it's been checked against, and conforms to, a DTD. If it hasn't been then it can't
be said to be valid.
-Roger
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
Import Notes
Resolved by subject fallback
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 12:32 -0800, Roger Hand wrote:
John Gray wrote on
Friday, January 27, 2006 12:24 PMOn Wed, 25 Jan 2006 17:11:04 -0800, George Pavlov wrote:
Not sure what the correct forum for pgxml/xml2 questions is. I was
wondering what is the definition of "valid" that the xml_valid(text)
function that is part of that module uses? It seems different from the
W3C definition of "valid" XML (is there an implicit DTD?) Maybe it is
more akin to "well-formed"?It is indeed well-formed. That just seemed a long name for the function!
John
Valid means it's been checked against, and conforms to, a DTD. If it hasn't been then it can't
be said to be valid.
I know that - my point was just that when I was naming the functions, I
(perhaps foolishly, in hindsight) decided that xml_wellformed seemed a
longish name for a basic function. The README does in fact state that it
checks well-formedness and not validity. It's easily changed in the SQL
file if you'd rather have a different name for your installation.
As for changing it in the distribution, I can see some
backward-compatibility issues (I suspect it may be in production use
under that name) - but if there were to be a version which validated a
document against a DTD it would be a two parameter version which would
therefore have a different signature for PG.
Regards
John
On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:21, John Gray wrote:
I know that - my point was just that when I was naming the functions, I
(perhaps foolishly, in hindsight) decided that xml_wellformed seemed a
longish name for a basic function. The README does in fact state that it
checks well-formedness and not validity. It's easily changed in the SQL
file if you'd rather have a different name for your installation.As for changing it in the distribution, I can see some
backward-compatibility issues (I suspect it may be in production use
under that name) - but if there were to be a version which validated a
document against a DTD it would be a two parameter version which would
therefore have a different signature for PG.
A lot of validators make it clear that you can validate xml with or
without a DTD. So, it makes sense to have an overloaded xml_valid()
function that accepts a single argument (plain xml) and a two parter
that takes xml and a dtd as the two arguments.