Re: review: xml_is_well_formed

Hello

I checked last version:

* there are not a problem with regress and contrib regress tests
* the design is simple and clean now - well documented

notes:
* don't get a patch via copy/paste from mailing list archive - there
are a broken xml2 tests via this access!
* I didn't find a sentence so default for xml_is_well_formed a content
checking - some like "without change of xmloption, the behave is same
as xml_is_well_formed_content"

Regards

Pavel Stehule

2010/8/11 Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>:
> On 11/08/10 21:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>  writes:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Robert Haas<robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There's also the fact that it would probably end up parsing the data
>>>> twice.  Given xmloption, I'm inclined to think Tom has it right:
>>>> provided xml_is_well_formed() that follows xmloption, plus a specific
>>>> version for each of content and document.
>>
>>> Another reasonable option here would be to forget about having
>>> xml_is_well_formed() per se and ONLY offer
>>> xml_is_well_formed_content() and xml_is_well_formed_document().
>>
>> We already have xml_is_well_formed(); just dropping it doesn't seem like
>> a helpful choice.
>>
>>> As a project management note, this CommitFest is over in 4 days, so
>>> unless we have a new version of this patch real soon now we need to
>>> defer it to the September 15th CommitFest
>>
>> Yes.  Mike, are you expecting to submit a new version before the end of
>> the week?
>>
>
> Yes and here it is, apologies for the delay. I have re-implemented
> xml_is_well_formed such that it is sensitive to the XMLOPTION. The
> additional _document and _content methods are now present. Tests and
> documentation adjusted to suit.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Mike Fowler
> Registered Linux user: 379787
>