Re: [DOCS] Inconsistencies in our SGML output

2003-08-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes:

> Does anyone know why the very same cross-reference,
>
> renders as "Part VI" here:
>   http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql.html
> and on the next page as "Part VI in PostgreSQL 7.4beta1 Documentation":
>   http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/sql-syntax.html
> Given that we're building just one book now, the latter form seems
> overly verbose to me.

Apparently, there is a bug in the stylesheets.  I'm looking at it.

> Another oddity can be seen in the table of contents for the plpgsql
> chapter,
>   http://developer.postgresql.org/docs/postgres/plpgsql.html
> Why is there no TOC entry for subsection 40.2.1?  It seems to be made
> with  just the same as the other subsections.

The stylesheets deliberately don't make a TOC for a particular level if
it would consist of just one entry.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

2003-08-19 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Bruce Momjian writes:

> Now that we are in beta, does someone want to tackle a "security"
> section in the docs?

IMO, security shouldn't be a section, it should be a recurring theme
throughout all documentation material.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
  subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
  message can get through to the mailing list cleanly


Re: [DOCS] [HACKERS] What goes into the security doc?

2003-08-19 Thread Dan Langille
On 19 Aug 2003 at 10:18, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

> Bruce Momjian writes:
> 
> > Now that we are in beta, does someone want to tackle a "security"
> > section in the docs?
> 
> IMO, security shouldn't be a section, it should be a recurring theme
> throughout all documentation material.

Do you think the existing docs are inadequete in this regard?  If so, 
in what areas are they insufficient?  What changes do you recommend?

FWIW, having a theme is a great idea.  Please let us know of any 
changes you see necessary.  But I, and others much wiser than I am,  
think a section where the admin can read up on the important stuff is 
essential.

If you were new to PostgreSQL, would you rather string together 
information from all over the documentation or would you rather have 
a concise overview of Things You Need To Know(tm)?

As always, patches are requested.
-- 
Dan Langille : http://www.langille.org/


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]