Peter Eisentraut a écrit :
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> 2. We have two regional projects that take a lot of hard earned time
>> to work around the lackluster state of our source documentation,
>> namely SGML.
> I know of one regional project that has done documentation work, the
> French one. (I'm sorry that I missed the other one.) Their reason for
> moving to XML was (a) to use FOP for (b) producing print output more
> efficiently. But you can use FOP right now, so (a) is not a good
> reason, and we have fixed the print output generation now, so (b) isn't
> a reason either.
We didn't switch to use FOP. We switched to build better PDF files
(better --> prettier). Perhaps we could have done the same with SGML but
I had a great way to do it with XML and XSLT (and FOP), a way I can
understand, customize, enhance, etc.
The last PDF available on the website has some bad issues. Just take a
look at table 8-13 (page 805), table 8-18 (page 113). One more time, I
don't say you can't fix this in SGML (and I think we already talk of
this some time ago). But *I* won't do it. And I think some people are
willing to work on this but they also want to have XML documentation.
Perhaps we can switch to XML just because people who want to get
involved with PostgreSQL documentation want to use XML ?
>> This hard earned time would better be spent on other
>> things and could be if you would stop stonewalling and let us move to
> I'm not stonewalling anything. If someone wants to prepare a case for
> moving to XML, be my guest. I'm just here to debunk the reasons for
> moving to XML which are wrong.
In response to
pgsql-docs by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-12-10 17:11:29|
|Subject: Re: Switching to XML |
|Previous:||From: Joshua D. Drake||Date: 2006-12-10 16:52:23|
|Subject: Re: Switching to XML|