| From: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: XPATH evaluation |
| Date: | 2011-06-17 16:37:17 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTikMmW6Ef71jtooVQJWGDXtbVnmM0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2011/6/17, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
> On 06/17/2011 11:29 AM, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
>
>> CDATA sections are just syntactic sugar (a form of escaping):
>
> Yeah. OTOH doesn't an empty CDATA section force a child element, where a
> pure empty element does not?
Wow, some Googling around shows that there is much confusion about
this. I thought that it was obvious that adding <![CDATA[]]> shouldn't
change the content at all, but quite a few people seem to disagree
:-/.
Nicolas
--
A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion.
Q. Why is top posting bad?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Garick Hamlin | 2011-06-17 17:01:05 | 9.1beta2 / UNLOGGED + CHECK + INHERITS |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-17 16:29:27 | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |