Re: DOCS: Missing <structfield> tags for some SEQUENCE fields

On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 10:43 AM Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 2:53 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 4:46 PM Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 13, 2025, at 13:17, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > While reviewing the recent patches for SEQUENCE documentation I found
> > > > [1] a few more instances where the <structfield> tag should have been
> > > > used for some of the sequence fields (per the recent push [2]).
> > > >
> > >
> > > Good catch. LGTM. I rendered the html pages and viewed them, the pages also look good.
> > >
> >
> > Why do we think using <structfield> tag is appropriate instead of the
> > current <literal> tag? The explanation of the is_called says: "Sets
> > the sequence object's current value, and optionally its is_called
> > flag.", so from "object's current value", are we deducing it is the
> > same as struct? Ideally, it should be used to mark up the name of a
> > field in a struct which is close to what we are doing here. Do we have
> > a similar usage at other places in the docs?
> >
>
> As referenced in the first post above, Bruce had recommended/pushed
> [1] that the appropriate SGML tags to use for tables and columns are
> <structname> and <structfield>.
>
> So, I chose <structfield> because those fields ('last_value' and
> 'is_called') are columns of the sequence relation [2].
>

Okay, thanks for the context. I'll push your patch on Monday unless
there are any comments.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.