Andrew Dunstan a écrit :
>
>
> Albert Cervera i Areny wrote:
>>> I'm very strongly in favor of having this documentation. However, I
>>> think
>>> it might make sense to put "Contrib Modules" as a section under either
>>> "Reference" or "Appendices". Also, I don't think it's necessary to make
>
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:18 schrieb Neil Conway:
> I wonder if it would be possible to keep the master version of the
> contrib docs as SGML, and generate plaintext READMEs from it during the
> documentation build.
Using asciidoc you could do it the other way around.
--
Peter Eisentraut
h
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:27 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> Also, let's recall what has previously been discussed for contrib,
> namely that we break it out into standard modules
But that would also mean that the documentation system is somewhat
modularized. That is, if I deinstall some module,
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 29. August 2007 20:27 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
Also, let's recall what has previously been discussed for contrib,
namely that we break it out into standard modules
But that would also mean that the documentation system is somewhat
modularized.
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you want to design a pluggable documentation system then go for it,
> but it's not required by what I understand is the consensus plan for
> contrib.
I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
the contrib docs, ie, put th
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:13 schrieb Andrew Dunstan:
> What? No it doesn't. You have missed the key word in the sentence above:
> "standard". The idea is that the docs will describe the *standard*
> modules, i.e. those that ship with the PostgreSQL core distribution
> (because they are curr
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
> I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
> the contrib docs, ie, put the docs under the noses of people who have
> *not* installed or even heard of the modules. So "it's not in the docs
> unless you installed it"
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 30. August 2007 15:26 schrieb Tom Lane:
I thought a large part of the desire was to improve the visibility of
the contrib docs, ie, put the docs under the noses of people who have
*not* installed or even heard of the modules. So "it's not in the docs
I see many places in the SGML docs that we do:
user
current
In almost every case the "zone" tag has the same name as the section it
is in. However, there are other cases that have no "zone" tag and they
default to the section they are in. What I am wondering is why we
specify "z
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> What I am wondering is why we specify "zone" at all?
It means that the entire section is relevant to the index term.
Otherwise it would mean that only the narrow area around the index term
is relevant. In printed renditions, that would be the difference
between saying
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > What I am wondering is why we specify "zone" at all?
>
> It means that the entire section is relevant to the index term.
> Otherwise it would mean that only the narrow area around the index term
> is relevant. In printed renditions, that would
Can someone tell me what is the matter with this index entry in
textsearch.sgml?
GiST
I have commented out the entry in CVS so indexes can be built but with
it enabled it generates an error in bookindex.sgml:
openjade:bookindex.sgml:2731:0:E: character data is not allowe
12 matches
Mail list logo
