Re: The two "XML Fixes" patches still in need of review
Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
From: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
Markus Winand <markus.winand@winand.at>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Date: 2019-03-23T23:46:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 03/23/19 18:20, Chapman Flack wrote: >> Perhaps it'd make sense under the XML section in datatype.sgml, >> but I think I might lean to making it a new section in Appendix D >> (SQL Conformance). > > Sounds like the option (4) I proposed back in [1]. I suppose it won't > be much trouble to move. The current structure of that appendix is: a few introductory paragraphs (not wrapped in any <sect... ...>), followed by two <sect1>s that are both autogenerated (the supported and unsupported features tables). The <sect1>s become independent pages, in the HTML version. - Move the XML limits/conformance section to a new <sect1> there? - Before the autogenerated tables, or after them? The un-<sect>ed intro paragraphs are preceded (in HTML) by a table of contents, so the new section should show up there. - Also add a mention (say, in the next-to-last intro paragraph) that there are notes on the SQL/XML conformance that have their own section (and link to it)? Or just let the generated ToC link be enough? Regards, -Chap
Commits
-
Improve documentation about our XML functionality
- 728c49779ba8 11.6 landed
- 603a28b44973 10.11 landed
-
Improve documentation about our XML functionality.
- 12d46ac392d0 12.0 landed