On Fri, 2006-01-27 at 15:21, John Gray wrote: > I know that - my point was just that when I was naming the functions, I > (perhaps foolishly, in hindsight) decided that xml_wellformed seemed a > longish name for a basic function. The README does in fact state that it > checks well-formedness and not validity. It's easily changed in the SQL > file if you'd rather have a different name for your installation. > > As for changing it in the distribution, I can see some > backward-compatibility issues (I suspect it may be in production use > under that name) - but if there were to be a version which validated a > document against a DTD it would be a two parameter version which would > therefore have a different signature for PG. A lot of validators make it clear that you can validate xml with or without a DTD. So, it makes sense to have an overloaded xml_valid() function that accepts a single argument (plain xml) and a two parter that takes xml and a dtd as the two arguments.
