Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>> Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch ensures independency datetime fields on current datestyle
>>> setting. Add new internal datestyle USE_XSD_DATESTYLE. It's almoust
>>> same to USE_ISO_DATESTYLE. Differences are for timestamp:
>>>
>>> ISO: yyyy-mm-dd hh24:mi:ss
>>> XSD: yyyy-mm-ddThh24:mi:ss
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Pavel,
>>
>> I agree that we should have some support for XSD date style so that
>> we can produce validatable XML documents. In fact I had to make just
>> such a transformation on data pulled from Postgres recently in
>> application code to get a document to validate.
>>
>> However, I have not seen this topic discussed on -hackers. The way we
>> work is that ideas about features should be discussed there before
>> you submit a patch. For one thing, -hackers has a somewhat wider set
>> of readers than -patches. Also, you might well get good ideas about
>> any likely difficulties. Just lobbing a patch for an undiscussed
>> feature over the wall like this is not good practice. You should get
>> signoff on the idea before you start coding, even for fairly small
>> changes.
>>
>
> I am sorry. I reported this two times before. This patch is related
> only for xml functionality. XSD datestyle is only one internal
> constant. There are no new datestyle (I hope so can be usefull). My
> patch is small bug fix like Peter's patch for boolean datatype.
> Generating invalid xml is bug not feature, no?
>
> Primary I had to send this patch to Peter.
>
>
I'm not sure that we are actually guaranteeing anything about XML
validity against any schema or DTD, are we?
If there was previous email I apologise, as I didn't find it when I
looked. Perhaps in such cases you could include a ref to the archive URL.
cheers
andrew
