From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jürgen Purtz <juergen(at)purtz(dot)de> |
Subject: | Re: First SVG graphic |
Date: | 2019-03-11 14:50:52 |
Message-ID: | 22218.1552315852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I played with this further. My conclusion is that SVG as a source
> format is not workable. Aside from the tooling issues that are being
> discussed, which might be solvable, I think it's not the right level of
> abstraction.
It does seem like using SVG as an intermediate format rather than a source
format might be a better idea.
> (We can have some discussion about whether we want to commit the
> intermediate SVG files and what the directory layout should be etc. I
> didn't bother with that in my patch yet.)
Ideally, we'd treat them much as we do for bison output files:
we'll supply them in tarballs but you'd better have the relevant
tools if you want to build docs from a git pull. However, that
may be assuming too much about the portability of the tools ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jürgen Purtz | 2019-03-12 03:14:39 | Re: First SVG graphic |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-11 09:13:47 | Re: First SVG graphic |