From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Can extension build own SGML document? |
Date: | 2015-09-15 15:13:05 |
Message-ID: | 3334.1442329985@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce
>> either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other
>> than html output (in particular, PDF), you're back to relying on the
>> exact same creaky docbook toolchain we use now. Only with one extra
>> dependency in front of it.
> a2x (http://www.methods.co.nz/asciidoc/a2x.1.html) states that it can
> generate "PDF, EPUB, DVI, PS, LaTeX, XHTML (single page or chunked), man
> page, HTML Help or plain text formats using asciidoc(1) and other
> applications (see REQUISITES section). SOURCE_FILE can also be a DocBook
> file with an .xml extension."
AFAICS, for all cases other than HTML output, the "other applications"
are basically the docbook toolchain.
> What I expect would be a lot more effort is actually converting all the
> SGML to asciidoc. A quick google search doesn't turn up anything promising.
Yeah, the cost of conversion means we're not likely to want to experiment
to see what's better :-(.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2015-09-15 15:13:37 | Re: [DOCS] Missing COMMENT ON POLICY |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-09-15 15:08:26 | Re: Can extension build own SGML document? |