Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Christopher Masto <chris+pg-hackers(at)netmonger(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?
Date: 2001-04-17 16:15:16
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0104171803170.762-100000@peter.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane writes:

> It seems to me that all of the other problems you enumerate are simply
> bugs in the doc toolchain. We've worked around them rather than tried
> to fix them because that was the shortest path to a result, but if Chris
> wants to tackle actually fixing them, that would sure be nice. Based on
> your comments here, my recommendation would be to forget RTF entirely;
> instead, work on getting out the kinks in the TeX pathway.

The consensus of the authors and others that know what they're saying is
essentially that jadetex can't be fixed without a complete rewrite of the
Jade TeX backend (jadetex != Jade TeX backend). And currently there's
little to no interest or manpower for sweeping changes in Jade.

The presently most future-proof free software way to use TeX for
formatting DocBook is PassiveTeX, which works through XML and XSL FO.
I've tried it once and if I'm not mistaken I got a readable PDF file part
of the time. If anyone's interested in helping with the tool chain, look
there first.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-04-17 16:16:39 Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?
Previous Message Michael Ansley 2001-04-17 16:09:55 RE: AW: timeout on lock feature