On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 9/15/15 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce
>>> either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other
>>> than html output (in particular, PDF), you're back to relying on the
>>> exact same creaky docbook toolchain we use now.  Only with one extra
>>> dependency in front of it.
>>>
>>> Personally I never look at anything but the HTML rendering, but I doubt
>>> that dropping support for all other output formats would fly :-(
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, really?
>
> Man pages are in wide use, I think.

Hmm, yeah.

>> I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really
>> has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build.  Who in
>> 2015 would use a PDF instead of HTML?
>
> PDF is actually kind of neat for searches across the whole document.

OK.

-- 
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

Reply via email to