| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, 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 15:45:27 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobVZ1esPfUFzm+t84uatEnYfPtTULQb+OTqdi0+3XUcAQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> 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.
>
> Personally I never look at anything but the HTML rendering, but I doubt
> that dropping support for all other output formats would fly :-(
Just out of curiosity, really?
I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really
has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build. Who in
2015 would use a PDF instead of HTML?
(If there is somebody, that is fine. But I am curious who it is and
why, because it seems to me like it would just be a nuisance.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Charles Clavadetscher | 2015-09-15 15:46:50 | Re: [DOCS] Missing COMMENT ON POLICY |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2015-09-15 15:35:27 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix an O(N^2) problem in foreign key references. |