[DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread David Blewett
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi All:

I read a thread from July explaining the current status of moving to XML
[1].

Peter, you mention that if someone has a clear need you would be open to
switching. Let me explain the problems I've encountered with SGML.

A few months ago, I split up the 8.1 pdf into 2 volumes so that I could
get a hardbound copy from Lulu. You can get those here [2-3] (I'm not
making any money, it's the pure cost of production). For 8.2, I wanted
to go deeper and be able to distribute the final version to bookstores.
In order to do that, each volume needs to be under 700 pages.

I started work on modifying the SGML to use a set of 3 volumes, split at
roughly 500 page intervals. I wanted to generate individual ToC's and
indexes for each volume. I started to modify the SGML to include a
"role" attribute for each indexterm, to tell what volume it was part of.
This was done with a simple sed script. When I went to generate the
actual indexes, I hit a brick wall. Apparently, the SGML toolchain
cannot handle typed indexes as described here [4]. Only the XML
toolchain currently handles them.

I am working with Joshua Drake on creating a Lulu account for the
fundraising group. We would then move the volumes I did for 8.1 to their
account, and raise the price so that any profit went to them. The
ability to order the 8.2 manual from bookstores could increase the
visibility of the project as a whole.

David Blewett

1.
http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.docs/browse_thread/thread/37ff3a011bb705d7
2. http://www.lulu.com/content/455020
3. http://www.lulu.com/content/464949
4. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/14/dbndx.html?page=3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFeXIOZmlc6wNjtLYRAo2yAKCZT1NbsklCd8djADdv48MuLELG7wCfYYG3
ypUw8LU3g++GaY6Dz2vUi+I=
=lC+c
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 09:09 -0500, David Blewett wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Hi All:
> 
> I read a thread from July explaining the current status of moving to XML
> [1].

To add to this, it would take minutes to transform XML versus the days
it takes the SGML.

Joshua D. Drake

> 
> Peter, you mention that if someone has a clear need you would be open to
> switching. Let me explain the problems I've encountered with SGML.
> 
> A few months ago, I split up the 8.1 pdf into 2 volumes so that I could
> get a hardbound copy from Lulu. You can get those here [2-3] (I'm not
> making any money, it's the pure cost of production). For 8.2, I wanted
> to go deeper and be able to distribute the final version to bookstores.
> In order to do that, each volume needs to be under 700 pages.
> 
> I started work on modifying the SGML to use a set of 3 volumes, split at
> roughly 500 page intervals. I wanted to generate individual ToC's and
> indexes for each volume. I started to modify the SGML to include a
> "role" attribute for each indexterm, to tell what volume it was part of.
> This was done with a simple sed script. When I went to generate the
> actual indexes, I hit a brick wall. Apparently, the SGML toolchain
> cannot handle typed indexes as described here [4]. Only the XML
> toolchain currently handles them.
> 
> I am working with Joshua Drake on creating a Lulu account for the
> fundraising group. We would then move the volumes I did for 8.1 to their
> account, and raise the price so that any profit went to them. The
> ability to order the 8.2 manual from bookstores could increase the
> visibility of the project as a whole.
> 
> David Blewett
> 
> 1.
> http://groups.google.com/group/pgsql.docs/browse_thread/thread/37ff3a011bb705d7
> 2. http://www.lulu.com/content/455020
> 3. http://www.lulu.com/content/464949
> 4. http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2004/07/14/dbndx.html?page=3
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iD8DBQFFeXIOZmlc6wNjtLYRAo2yAKCZT1NbsklCd8djADdv48MuLELG7wCfYYG3
> ypUw8LU3g++GaY6Dz2vUi+I=
> =lC+c
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> 
>http://archives.postgresql.org
> 
-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: 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] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
David Blewett wrote:
> I started work on modifying the SGML to use a set of 3 volumes, split
> at roughly 500 page intervals. I wanted to generate individual ToC's
> and indexes for each volume. I started to modify the SGML to include
> a "role" attribute for each indexterm, to tell what volume it was
> part of. This was done with a simple sed script. When I went to
> generate the actual indexes, I hit a brick wall. Apparently, the SGML
> toolchain cannot handle typed indexes as described here [4]. Only the
> XML toolchain currently handles them.

But no one is forcing you to use "the SGML toolchain".  I requote the 
message you cited:

 First of all, moving to DocBook XML will not do anything in the way of 
 improving our output processing abilities.  Any tool that you can use 
 on DocBook SGML can also be used on DocBook XML and vice versa.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Josh Berkus

Peter,

 First of all, moving to DocBook XML will not do anything in the way of 
 improving our output processing abilities.  Any tool that you can use 
 on DocBook SGML can also be used on DocBook XML and vice versa.




As I said then, this is absolutely untrue.  OpenOffice.org, for example, 
works with DocBook XML but not SGML.  There are also a plethora of XML 
editing and publishing tools which can been used for Docbook XML which 
are not available for SGML.  A simple look at this page: 
http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookAuthoringTools
 shows that there are more than twice as many authoring tools which 
support only XML as support SGML -- and that most of the tools which 
support SGML are out-of-maintenance.


--Josh Berkus


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:36 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> >  First of all, moving to DocBook XML will not do anything in the way of 
> >  improving our output processing abilities.  Any tool that you can use 
> >  on DocBook SGML can also be used on DocBook XML and vice versa.
> > 
> 
> As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. 

You are correct Josh. I am not sure why Peter ignores this simple fact.

>  OpenOffice.org, for example, 
> works with DocBook XML but not SGML.  There are also a plethora of XML 
> editing and publishing tools which can been used for Docbook XML which 
> are not available for SGML.  A simple look at this page: 
> http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookAuthoringTools
>  shows that there are more than twice as many authoring tools which 
> support only XML as support SGML -- and that most of the tools which 
> support SGML are out-of-maintenance.

Yep.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> --Josh Berkus
> 
> 
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
> 
-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Josh Berkus wrote:
> As I said then, this is absolutely untrue.  OpenOffice.org, for
> example, works with DocBook XML but not SGML.

What does "works" mean?

> There are also a 
> plethora of XML editing and publishing tools which can been used for
> Docbook XML which are not available for SGML.

That has nothing to do with processing.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:15 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > As I said then, this is absolutely untrue.  OpenOffice.org, for
> > example, works with DocBook XML but not SGML.
> 
> What does "works" mean?

You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
OpenOfice.org.

> 
> > There are also a 
> > plethora of XML editing and publishing tools which can been used for
> > Docbook XML which are not available for SGML.
> 
> That has nothing to do with processing.

You are correct but XML does give us more modern and efficient toolsets
for processing. XSLT, FOP + Xerces for example.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> OpenOfice.org.

Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML.  No one disputes 
that.  But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.

> You are correct but XML does give us more modern and efficient
> toolsets for processing. XSLT, FOP + Xerces for example.

You can do that right now.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > OpenOfice.org.
> 
> Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML.  No one disputes 
> that.  But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.

Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
problem and the core of the question as a whole.

SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.

We have people that *DO NOT* contribute because of this SGML
requirement. They have what I consider extremely valid reasons, namely
it is dumb to require a writer to use emacs or write tags explictly.

Hell, the only reason I have even bothered to contribute what little I
have to the docs is because I wrote a book in SGML, thus it is a no
brainer to me. Others aren't so tortured as to have done the same.

There is a long standing support within the community to move to XML
including:

Josh Berkus
Josh Drake
Robert Treat
Andrew Dunslane
David Blewett
David Fetter
Devrim Gunduz
Darcy Buskermolen

And that is just from #postgresql

The french team also uses Docbook XML and they can generate a PDF in 30
minutes... it takes us DAYS because of the SGML.

How about we stopping using assembling and move to C shall we?

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > > OpenOfice.org.
> > 
> > Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML.  No one disputes 
> > that.  But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.
> 
> Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
> problem and the core of the question as a whole.
> 
> SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.
> 
> We have people that *DO NOT* contribute because of this SGML
> requirement. They have what I consider extremely valid reasons, namely
> it is dumb to require a writer to use emacs or write tags explictly.

I'm one.  I had the vacuuming stuff about written, but couldn't figure
out the tool set this summer, and didn't have the time.  Does OO make it
pretty much painless to work with?  I couldn't find any tools that I
felt comfortable using for SGML / Docbooks.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:45 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > > > OpenOfice.org.
> > > 
> > > Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML.  No one disputes 
> > > that.  But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.
> > 
> > Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
> > problem and the core of the question as a whole.
> > 
> > SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.
> > 
> > We have people that *DO NOT* contribute because of this SGML
> > requirement. They have what I consider extremely valid reasons, namely
> > it is dumb to require a writer to use emacs or write tags explictly.
> 
> I'm one.  I had the vacuuming stuff about written, but couldn't figure
> out the tool set this summer, and didn't have the time.  Does OO make it
> pretty much painless to work with?  I couldn't find any tools that I
> felt comfortable using for SGML / Docbooks.

OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
(like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...

The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
representation data. That belongs to a style sheet.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake



-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:51, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:45 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > > > > OpenOfice.org.
> > > > 
> > > > Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML.  No one disputes 
> > > > that.  But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.
> > > 
> > > Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
> > > problem and the core of the question as a whole.
> > > 
> > > SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.
> > > 
> > > We have people that *DO NOT* contribute because of this SGML
> > > requirement. They have what I consider extremely valid reasons, namely
> > > it is dumb to require a writer to use emacs or write tags explictly.
> > 
> > I'm one.  I had the vacuuming stuff about written, but couldn't figure
> > out the tool set this summer, and didn't have the time.  Does OO make it
> > pretty much painless to work with?  I couldn't find any tools that I
> > felt comfortable using for SGML / Docbooks.
> 
> OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
> (like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
> transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...
> 
> The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
> representation data. That belongs to a style sheet.

and let me add that I'm not really anti-sgml docbook, I just couldn't
find a "starter set" for editing the stuff.  It seemed like everything I
found on docbook xml was written for people who already use docbook xml.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Joshua D. Drake

> > OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
> > (like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
> > transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...
> > 
> > The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
> > representation data. That belongs to a style sheet.
> 
> and let me add that I'm not really anti-sgml docbook, I just couldn't
> find a "starter set" for editing the stuff.  It seemed like everything I
> found on docbook xml was written for people who already use docbook xml.

Nor am I anti-sgml. I am however anti-noncontribution, if people are not
contributing because of our sgml but would if it is xml, that is a no
brainer.

Further, here is a real world problem that our toolset creates...

I take 5 minutes, change the stylesheet for SGML. I want to see what my
changes will look like... 3 days later, I will know.

That is stupid. If it was XML, it would be 30 minutes. That is a
workable timeframe.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> ---(end of broadcast)---
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
> 
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
> 
-- 

  === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
 http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Oisin Glynn

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
(like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...

The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
representation data. That belongs to a style sheet.
  

and let me add that I'm not really anti-sgml docbook, I just couldn't
find a "starter set" for editing the stuff.  It seemed like everything I
found on docbook xml was written for people who already use docbook xml.



Nor am I anti-sgml. I am however anti-noncontribution, if people are not
contributing because of our sgml but would if it is xml, that is a no
brainer.

Further, here is a real world problem that our toolset creates...

I take 5 minutes, change the stylesheet for SGML. I want to see what my
changes will look like... 3 days later, I will know.

That is stupid. If it was XML, it would be 30 minutes. That is a
workable timeframe.


Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


  

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate


I am not an expert in any of this but would say the one time I had 
something I would have added to a doc (windows Vs *nix differences in 
copy command) I was in knots with the whole SGML thing and figured it 
would be quicker to just post an answer on the mailing list so it would 
be immortalized, it should not be so hard to contribute. I feel there 
are people who maybe cannot code or add in that way  but could add to 
docs if it was easier. I had an easier time setting up a pgAdmin build 
than figuring out the SGML stuff.


Oisin


smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature


Re: [DOCS] Switching to XML

2006-12-08 Thread Mario

On 08/12/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

There is a long standing support within the community to move to XML
including:

Josh Berkus
Josh Drake
Robert Treat
Andrew Dunslane
David Blewett
David Fetter
Devrim Gunduz
Darcy Buskermolen

And that is just from #postgresql



 And now in Chile, I wrote an app to translate postgres documentation
(l10n.postgresql.cl). I took SGML sources, transform to XML and to POT
files

 The results are good! but is it not the best. To move from SGML to
XML is a hard work.





--
http://www.advogato.org/person/mgonzalez/

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster


Re: [pgsql-www] [DOCS] 8.2.0 pdf

2006-12-08 Thread Jim Nasby

On Dec 7, 2006, at 12:03 AM, Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:

Devrim, could you share your texmf.cnf ? My pdf creation failed even
if I increased memory setting as it's recommended in jadetex
installation.


I had to increase several settings in that file.

http://www.gunduz.org/postgresql/texmf.cnf


ISTM that info should be in CVS, maybe in the README.

Also, if PDF indexes depend on HTML, perhaps HTML should be a  
dependency of PDF in the Makefile.

--
Jim Nasby[EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB  http://enterprisedb.com  512.569.9461 (cell)



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

   http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate