Arguments pro and contra diagrams are not the central focus of SGML to
XML conversion, nevertheless: "Diagrams" didn't mean any binary format -
only SVN or any other text-format is acceptable. And: if the SVN source
is generated by any program like Inkscape it tends to get unreadable.
But if we develop a SVN-library with our own predefined graphical
elements, the SVN source gets very clear. The discussion of 2011
mentioned below was continued in 2016:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5690218B.9060103%40purtz.de.
Regards, Jürgen Purtz
On 23.08.2016 16:43, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Really, what change we need, it is conversion from SGML to XML format.
It would solve some real problems, such as ability to include diagrams
in the docs,
This argument sounds weak to me. Last time when I proposed to include
diagrams in the docs in the pgsql-hackers list, some developers were
against the idea because if the diagram is binary, it's hard to
maintain in git. However up to now, there's no consensus that which
text base diagram source (which allows to generate real diagrams from
it) is good for our purpose. I don't see why just migrating to XML
solves the problem.
(the discussion on diagrams stopped in 2011, as far as I know)
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1307972167.2862.518.camel@core2
Don't get me wrong. I am not against migrating to XML. I just want to
say that let's not pretend that migrating to XML would solve all the
problems we have.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
