On Feb 28, 2009, at 7:53 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This is entirely out of the question for 8.3, as it's a significant
change of behaviour.
Yep. Even with implicit prefixing, the semantics are very different.
What got me thinking about it was this:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2008-07/msg00058.php
If it's desirable to avoid prefixing, what options remain?
(At least I find it desirable to avoid prefixing =)
I'd also want to see this usage blessed by some xpath guru ... I'm
not sure it meets the standard's requirements, but I could be wrong.
Oh, the context node question you raised? I think it would be easy to
expect that the standard is expecting a well-formed document to query
against in the first place, so I *do* think it's a very valid concern.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#data-model
http://www.w3.org/TR/xpath#infoset
Curious, if we constructed an actual document fragment node from the
node list and set it as the document's root, would that be enough to
satisfy any requirements? It does appear to talk about nodes quite
generally.
In the current case, we're shaving the corners of the square peg so it
will fit in the round hole. In fragment()'s case, it seems we would be
trying to circumvent the round hole altogether..
I don't really like either way. :P
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
