Bruce,
> o WYSIWYG - this seems unattainable because such editors are
> going to modify the surrounding XML, which will affect
> hand-edited changes
It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
which does not mess up the source. There may be o
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > o WYSIWYG - this seems unattainable because such editors are
> > going to modify the surrounding XML, which will affect
> > hand-edited changes
>
> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
>> which does not mess up the source. There may be one, it would just take a
>> fair amount of testing to find it.
> Is this
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
> >> which does not mess up the source. There may be one, it would just take
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jim Nasby wrote:
> >> Also, if PDF indexes depend on HTML, perhaps HTML should be a
> >> dependency of PDF in the Makefile.
>
> > By that logic, HTML should also depend on HTML. I don't know how people
> > would like that.
>
> T
I have applied the attached documentation patch to HEAD and 8.2.X to
document the use of Tom's patch to openjade to get ouput in a reasonable
amount of time.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:34:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a
> >> WYSWYG tool which does not mess up the source. There may be one,
> >> i
> > What we need is something that does not change regions of the file
> > that the user did not intend to modify. I think
> > horizonal-white-space-only changes could be worked around if the
> > user is careful to use diff --ignore-space-change when submitting
> > the patch, but I suspect that a
