On 3/17/07, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> In principle I am in favor of the patch.
>
> Would it be better to use some more unlikely name for the dummy root
> element used to process fragments than <x> ?
>
> Perhaps even something in a special namespace?
>
I did think about it, but I didn't find any difficulties with simple
<x>...</x>. The thing is that regardless the element name we have
corresponding shift in XPath epression -- so, there cannot be any
problem from my point of view... But maybe I don't see something and
it's better to avoid _possible_ problem. It depends on PostgreSQL code
style itself -- what is the best approach in such cases? To avoid
unknown possible difficulties or to be clear?
--
Best regards,
Nikolay
