Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage

Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well ... that will read nicely in output formats that have hyperlinks,
>> but not so well on plain dead trees where the cross-reference is either
>> invisible or an explicit footnote. Our typical convention for this sort
>> of thing has been more like "... file for user name mapping (see <xref
>> linkend="auth-username-maps">)". That used to expand like
>> ...
>> You could argue that nobody reads the PG docs on dead trees anymore
>> and we should embrace the hyperlink style with enthusiasm. I wouldn't
>> be against that personally, but there are a lot of places to change if
>> we decide that parenthetical "(see Section M.N)" hotlinks are passé.

> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore,
> but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though,
> particularly for offline reading or loading them in ebook readers. So it
> still has to be workable there.

PDFs do have hyperlinks, so that in itself isn't an argument for keeping
the dead-tree-friendly approach. However, I've noticed some variation
among tools in whether a PDF hyperlink is visibly distinct, or whether
you have to mouse over it to find out that it would take you somewhere.
Not sure if that's enough of a usability fail to argue for keeping the
old way.

regards, tom lane