On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane<tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Uh, no, I see one container and a property. If we do just
>>>
>>> <Filter><Expr>(f1 > 0)</Expr></Filter>
>>>
>>> then where do we put additional information about the expression
>>> when the time comes?
>
>> I would assume you would just write:
>
>> <Filter><Text>(f1 > 0)</Text><Other-Stuff>thing!</Other-Stuff></Filter>
>
> Perhaps the issue would be clearer in JSON notation. We have
>
> "Filter": "(f1 > 0)"
>
> What I suggest is
>
> "Filter": { "Text": "(f1 > 0)" }
>
> I don't see where you're going to shoehorn in any additional information
> without the container, and once you have the container you need to name
> the property, no?
I agree. The JSON looks perfect to me.
I may be thick as a post here and say "oh, I'm a moron" when you
explain this to me, but I still don't understand why that would
require the XML notation to interpose an intermediate node. Why can't
"filter" node itself can be the labelled container?
...Robert
