Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Switching to XML

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Switching to XML
Date: 2006-12-11 20:07:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.

Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
Aside from getting the files themselves converted, there's the effort
for people to find, install, and learn suitable tools, not to mention
come up to speed on the differences between xml and sgml.  (I assume
there are some significant ones, else why are we having this discussion?)

The real problem here is that you've still failed to establish any
sizable benefit from converting.  As best I can tell at the moment,
the acceptable options for editing XML will be about the same as they
are for SGML: emacs, and not a lot else.  I don't really see why I
should have to start spelling out every closing tag for a no-op like

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Joshua D. DrakeDate: 2006-12-11 20:43:27
Subject: Re: Switching to XML
Previous:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2006-12-11 20:07:23
Subject: Re: Authoring Tools WAS: Switching to XML

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group