From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org |
Cc: | Christopher Masto <chris+pg-hackers(at)netmonger(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs? |
Date: | 2001-04-17 15:01:23 |
Message-ID: | 23689.987519683@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> 3) Page breaks are not always ideal. Some hand adjustments are desirable
> to get a better flow to the docs, especially wrt examples and lists; you
> don't want them breaking between pages if you can avoid it, especially
> with short examples.
This objection, at least, could be eliminated if the standard hardcopy
path were through TeX (which I assume is what jadetex does). TeX
understands just fine about discouraging or completely preventing page
breaks within certain groups of lines. In general, TeX is a lot better
suited for book-quality typesetting than any other open-source tool I've
heard of.
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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-17 15:16:54 | Re: AW: timeout on lock feature |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-17 14:53:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |