Re: [HACKERS] Questionable tag usage

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 1/4/17 11:50 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Anyway, bottom line is I'm not terribly excited about fixing just this
>>> one place. I think we need to decide whether we like the new more-verbose
>>> output for links. If we don't, we need to fix the markup rules to not do
>>> that. If we do, there are a lot of places that need adjustment to be less
>>> duplicative, and we should try to be somewhat systematic about fixing
>>> them.

> This question is still open. Do we want to keep the new linking style
> Section 1.2.3, "Title", or revert back to the old style just Section
> 1.2.3? It's a simple toggle setting.

I'd vote for reverting for now. If someone wants to run through the
docs and make considered decisions about where the more verbose style
is a win and where it isn't, then we could make the style change.
But that does not seem like a high-priority task --- and at the moment,
what we've got is a huge pile of docs that were written with the
less verbose style of markup in mind. So my bet is that there's a lot
of places where more-verbose is not a win.

regards, tom lane