Re: XPATH evaluation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Nicolas Barbier
Subject Re: XPATH evaluation
Date
Msg-id BANLkTikMmW6Ef71jtooVQJWGDXtbVnmM0w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: XPATH evaluation  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
2011/6/17, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.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?


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Florian Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY
Next
From: Garick Hamlin
Date:
Subject: 9.1beta2 / UNLOGGED + CHECK + INHERITS