On ons, 2012-04-04 at 16:29 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > Unfortunately, we can't just replace the sect1's in in Appendix F [0] > > with refentry's, because the content model of DocBook doesn't allow > > that. (You can't have a mixed sequence of sect1 and refentry, only one > > or the other.) > > Hm, would it work to have something like > <sect1> &pgbench; </sect1> <refentry> &pgbench; </refentry> > so that we get both? Probably with some conditional to avoid duplicate > output in html/pdf.
I don't think I follow what you are trying to do there. > (Why isn't this a problem for the SPI pages or dblink?) The don't mix sects and refentries at the same level. > > I think it would be useful to split this up into three sections: > > > > F.1. Extensions > > F.2. Client Applications > > F.3. Server Applications > > > > where the first looks like now and the other two contain the refentry > > pages. > > +1, but is there something that would not fit in either category? Not > sure if we have a SGML page for init-scripts for instance. No, everything we have documented fits in those categories. > If you're going to monkey around in this general, please also look at > the README. It should probably just go away. Indeed. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
