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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers