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

Re: Docs reorganization

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Docs reorganization
Date: 2000-10-04 01:20:17
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.21.0010040301470.1057-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docs
Thomas Lockhart writes:

> > If we're already at that point then we can abandon the separate user.sgml,
> > etc. and make links across books, right?
> Uh, I don't think so. It is unrealistic to have a 6-800 page hardcopy
> doc set as a single volume, so the individual docs should continue to be
> built.

I think the idea was to take the RTF file and split it at the boundaries.  
If I remember right then you already tried that and considered in

Otherwise this whole change would have been pointless because now the
integrated doc looks exactly like the individual ones only with an extra
title page.  Then we might as well get rid of that, but I think the intent
was to make them all into one set to enable cross-links.  I can't find the
original discussion right now (no archives of pgsql-docs available?) but I
thought that was the plan.

Peter Eisentraut      peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2000-10-04 01:30:13
Subject: Re: Docs reorganization
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-10-04 00:54:56
Subject: Re: Docs reorganization

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