Am Montag, 11. Dezember 2006 02:18 schrieb David Blewett:
> Sorry to butt in, but I'm still not sure how to do multiple indexes
> in one volume using the DSSSL stylesheets.
I'm not sure either.
> The docs I pointed to were for the XSL stylesheets.
Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead o
Tom,
> Uh, why do you think that's significant? The stype is whatever you
> need to use.
Right, but do you have two stypes for a multi-col, a single stype, or a
composite stype? The docs don't say and it's not obvious.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
--
Josh Berkus writes:
>> Uh, why do you think that's significant? The stype is whatever you
>> need to use.
> Right, but do you have two stypes for a multi-col, a single stype, or a
> composite stype? The docs don't say and it's not obvious.
There is only one transition state variable, as I sho
Tom,
> Whether the state value is a composite type or not is up to the
> aggregate author. There aren't any examples of using a composite type
> in the docs, but there are examples of using an array as stype, so
> I would hope that our users are bright enough to think of composites
> when they ne
Folks,
Tom and Peter correctly point out that discussion of production tools and
authoring tools are separate, and only come together if there are tools for
XML which solve both issues, an assertion which is not yet proven.
I am one of the champions of XML simply because I know for a fact that
Devrim GUNDUZ escribió:
Hi,
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 18:32 +0200, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
On Thu, 2006-12-07 at 14:39 +0100, Javier Molina wrote:
Page numbers do not appear in the table of contents (they show
as ??)
starting from ALTER TABLESPACE (page xix), they were fine in 8.1.
Yes, this was r
> So, questions to answer:
>
> 1) Are there enhanced tools for Docbook XML, WYSWYG or otherwise, which make
> doc authoring easier and produce correct output for PostgreSQL Docs?
Anything that you produce from a WYSWYG editor is going to have to be
massaged to work with PostgreSQL.Org docs.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet would
> be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently only has
> an XSLT stylesheet for HTML output. In 8.3devel I've added one
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:10 -0500, David Blewett wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet
> > would
> > be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently on
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) a) is there some way we can try various tools and check output?
> OpenOffice.Org, WordPerfect, Kword, Abiword. The first two (last I
> checked) were the only mature software supporting Docbook output.
I tried opening postgres.xml in OpenOffice 2
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 1) a) is there some way we can try various tools and check output?
>
> > OpenOffice.Org, WordPerfect, Kword, Abiword. The first two (last I
> > checked) were the only mature software supporting
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 19:07 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > The only thing I see is that you don't want to move because all the
> > tools that are available for docbook sgml are also available for
> > docbook xml.
>
> Link posted by David Blewett:
> http://groups.googl
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried opening postgres.xml in OpenOffice 2.0, and it just showed me
>> the raw text and markup --- no indication that it understood xml at all.
>> Is there some special incantation needed?
> I f
> Can you show me an authoring tool that does *not* think it's OK to
> mangle the low-level text in "semantically irrelevant" ways?
No. :) I mentioned this previously. Any word processor is going to blow
stuff away in an ugly way. The closest we could get is:
Create a custom style in OpenOffice
Josh,
> Anything that you produce from a WYSWYG editor is going to have to be
> massaged to work with PostgreSQL.Org docs.
*sigh* too bad Lyx only writes DocBook and doesn't read it.
> > * = an authoring tool is one which makes generation of the document
> > easier/faster than hand-editing tex
> "Authoring Tool" means "not always hand-editing tags". Right now, I can't
> do anything with Emacs SGML that I couldn't do with Wordpad or Pico,
> except validate.
That is certainly not true. Emacs will correctly associate your tags
without having to write those tags, if you use Emacs correc
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
unreadable. Same problem as with the authoring tools: that software
doesn't think that formatting of the XML sou
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 14:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
>
> We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
> unreadable.
You are correct which is actually the a
Josh,
> Wait... You want a tool to automatically fix tags? You do need to know
> Docbook to write the docs JoshB. That means you need to know which tags
> are relevant to what. Something like emacs will make this easier because
> it will tell you what tags are valid for each section of the documen
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
Aside from getting the files themselves converted, there's the effort
for people to find, install, and learn suitable tools,
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
>
> Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
> Aside from getting the files themselves converted, there's the e
> The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> establish any sizable benefit from converting. As best I can
> tell at the moment, the acceptable options for editing XML
> will be about the same as they are for SGML: emacs, and not a
> lot else. I don't really see why I should have t
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 21:56 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> > establish any sizable benefit from converting. As best I can
> > tell at the moment, the acceptable options for editing XML
> > will be about the same as they are for SGML: ema
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
>
> Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
> Aside from getting the files themselves converted,
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
>
> We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
> unreadable. Same problem as with the authoring tools: tha
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The benefit I'm talking about is the ability to do multiple indexes
> in one document, which is not possible with DSSSL. In order to do
> this, I would have to run the conversion *every time* I wanted to
> work on a new release of the manual to bookstores
> > > The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> establish any
> > > sizable benefit from converting. As best I can tell at
> the moment,
> > > the acceptable options for editing XML will be about the same as
> > > they are for SGML: emacs, and not a lot else. I don't really see
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Visual Studio has a *very* nice XML editor these days, and
>>> they don't do SGML...
>>>
>>> (ok, ok, that's a joke. It's true, sure, but it's not very
>>> relevant...)
>>
>> Actually it might be for Windows developers wishing to
>> develop Win
> >>> Visual Studio has a *very* nice XML editor these days, and they
> >>> don't do SGML...
> >>>
> >>> (ok, ok, that's a joke. It's true, sure, but it's not very
> >>> relevant...)
> >>
> >> Actually it might be for Windows developers wishing to develop
> >> Windows specific sections. How doe
David Blewett a écrit :
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet would
>> be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently only
>> has
>> an XSLT stylesheet for HTML output. In 8.3devel I've added one for XSL-FO
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, but for purely downstream work like that, what's the objection to
> just running the osx conversion? It seems to take just a few seconds.
>
> I'm still not seeing where we get return on our investment for
> converting the ma
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the designation of "downstream work" apply here? I was
> intending to contribute back any changes required, to enable anyone
> else to build the multiple volume version for printing.
Changes required where? AFAICS the useful content of your work wo
Tom Lane a ecrit le 12/12/2006 02:47:
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
I also would like to reiterate the fact that the localization
efforts would appreciate not having to re-do their work for each
release.
How exactly does working from an osx translation rather than hand-edited
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 5. The format objects development (FOP) seems to be better maintained
> then the dblatex/db2latex/pdflatex stuff.
Check the facts. The latest stable FOP release was more than three
years ago. The latest stable dblatex release was less than a month
ago.
--
Peter Eisen
34 matches
Mail list logo
