Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Well ... that will read nicely in output formats that have hyperlinks, >> but not so well on plain dead trees where the cross-reference is either >> invisible or an explicit footnote. Our typical convention for this sort >> of thing has been more like "... file for user name mapping (see <xref >> linkend="auth-username-maps">)". That used to expand like >> ... >> You could argue that nobody reads the PG docs on dead trees anymore >> and we should embrace the hyperlink style with enthusiasm. I wouldn't >> be against that personally, but there are a lot of places to change if >> we decide that parenthetical "(see Section M.N)" hotlinks are passé.
> I don't think there are a lto of people who use dead tree editions anymore, > but they certainly do exist. A lot of people use the PDFs though, > particularly for offline reading or loading them in ebook readers. So it > still has to be workable there. PDFs do have hyperlinks, so that in itself isn't an argument for keeping the dead-tree-friendly approach. However, I've noticed some variation among tools in whether a PDF hyperlink is visibly distinct, or whether you have to mouse over it to find out that it would take you somewhere. Not sure if that's enough of a usability fail to argue for keeping the old way. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers