| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can extension build own SGML document? |
| Date: | 2015-09-16 04:16:14 |
| Message-ID: | 55F8ED0E.30803@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/15/15 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce
>> either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other
>> than html output (in particular, PDF), you're back to relying on the
>> exact same creaky docbook toolchain we use now. Only with one extra
>> dependency in front of it.
>>
>> Personally I never look at anything but the HTML rendering, but I doubt
>> that dropping support for all other output formats would fly :-(
>
> Just out of curiosity, really?
Man pages are in wide use, I think.
> I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really
> has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build. Who in
> 2015 would use a PDF instead of HTML?
PDF is actually kind of neat for searches across the whole document.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-09-16 04:30:11 | Re: [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist. |
| Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-09-16 03:44:22 | Re: creating extension including dependencies |