Re: documentation is now XML

"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> All agreed, but what alternatives are being developed?

> I seem to recall a proposal a while back to gain margin on some of the
> limits by pruning the release notes section down to at least this century
> and archiving putting the older ones elsewhere.

Yeah; I did and still do think that's a good idea. But so far as the
toolchain is concerned, that's just a band-aid.

Anyway, we're on XML now, and it seems to be working fairly well.
I don't feel a need to revisit that. It's probably true that the
TeX-based toolchain was potentially capable of producing finer
typesetting results than the XML chain ... but, honestly, who's
printing the PG manual on dead trees anymore? I find the PDF output
to be mostly a legacy thing in the first place.

regards, tom lane