On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Ron Mayer <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
> Wow thanks! That's very helpful (though it might have been more
> fair to your time if you just kicked it back to me saying "rewrite
> the docs" so they make sense)!
>
Maybe ... but I figured it would take more time to fully explain what
I meant by "rewrite the docs" in an email than it would to actually
rewrite them. =)
>
> I've applied them with a couple minor changes.
>
> * If ISO 8601 5.5.3.1.d's statement "The designator T shall be
> absent if all of the time components are absent." also applies
> to 5.5.4.2.2; then I think the 'T' needed to be inside the
> <optional> tags, so I moved it there. The link to the spec's
> below[1].
Hmm, okay. When I was running my tests in psql I came away with the
impression that the T was required in the "alternative format". I
might be mistaken. I'll run some further tests a little later on.
> * There was a <sect2> that the patch changed to a <sect3>, and
> with that change I get an error:
> openjade:datatype.sgml:2306:31:E: document type does not allow element
> "SECT3" here
> so I changed it back to a <sect2>.
>
Ah, the <sect3> needs to go _inside_ the <sect2>, whereas I originally
had just changed the tags and left it in the same position (after the
<sect2>). I fixed this in my working copy but I must have forgotten
to produce a fresh patch after doing so.
Cheers,
BJ