D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: > On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:12:58 -0500 > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I think what Bruce meant to say is that this patch doesn't produce > > 100% spec-compliant ReST, and that almost-ReST doesn't seem like a > > good feature. > > It is a great feature for people actually using ReST. However, the > feature is really just a logical extension to the existing border > attribute. Frankly I don't understand your position. You seem to be saying that you want the logical extension to the border feature, because it's very easy to write, but you don't want to go to all the trouble of writing an actual rst output format -- I guess it's a lot more code. You don't care that your new border format is not actually rst, because you have no need for rst. Can I ask what is this logical extension of the border feature useful for, keeping in mind that rst is not it? Some people suggests that this is so close to rst that I should just use it as if it were, and hand-edit the output for the rare cases where it doesn't comply. I don't find this very compelling. Apparently the bottom line is that if it's not actual rst, it will get rejected. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
