On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:41 PM, Karl O. Pinc <k...@meme.com> wrote: > So at this point I'm out of ideas. Unless somebody > can chime in with a clue I'm ready to give up.
Frankly, I don't view this as enough of a problem to be worth spending time on. Actually, I'm not sure I view the formatting of that table as a problem at all, but if it is a problem it's not a big enough one to justify knocking ourselves out over it. There are many more substantive issues with our documentation that IMHO are more worthy of our attention. On the other hand, I *would* be somewhat in favor of migrating to a less-obsolete toolchain, as suggested elsewhere on this thread, but (a) I don't know whether XSL is the right thing and (b) I don't want to move until we're darn sure we know what we're moving to is gonna be an improvement, because this promises to make back-patching of documentation fixes really annoying for many years to come, not to mention creating lots of knock-on work for packagers. We can't go on forever with what we have now, I think, unless we're willing to assume all the maintenance burden thereof. But that takes nothing away from the fact that migration to a new system WILL be painful, and we sure don't want to do it twice, so we had better get it right the first time. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
