From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Christopher Masto <chris+pg-hackers(at)netmonger(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs? |
Date: | 2001-04-17 16:15:16 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0104171803170.762-100000@peter.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane writes:
> 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.
The consensus of the authors and others that know what they're saying is
essentially that jadetex can't be fixed without a complete rewrite of the
Jade TeX backend (jadetex != Jade TeX backend). And currently there's
little to no interest or manpower for sweeping changes in Jade.
The presently most future-proof free software way to use TeX for
formatting DocBook is PassiveTeX, which works through XML and XSL FO.
I've tried it once and if I'm not mistaken I got a readable PDF file part
of the time. If anyone's interested in helping with the tool chain, look
there first.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://funkturm.homeip.net/~peter
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-04-17 16:16:39 | Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs? |
Previous Message | Michael Ansley | 2001-04-17 16:09:55 | RE: AW: timeout on lock feature |