Re: Images in the official documentation

Hi Jürgen, On 11/14/18 8:36 AM, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > After many mails, F2F-discussions and some experiments - everything > without a concrete result - I hereby start a new initiative concerning > SVG tools. The attached PDF file describes my recommendation. The two > SVG files are examples for

Re: Images in the official documentation

Because I strongly support the involvement of SVG into our documentation, I welcome every activity to establish this goal. The mail to which Pavel had replied (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4ea1bacb-02ca-e967-31d7-d2a6db30abff%40purtz.de) contained the two graphics /PageLayout.svg/

Re: Images in the official documentation

Hello, Jürgen. You wrote: JP> On 19.07.2018 14:06, Pavel Golub wrote: >> I disagree. From what I heard, GraphViz is the winner for now. I can >> give you my two cents: plantuml is another good choice JP> Ok, please give us an example - possibly the two previous graphics. Fair enough. Let's

Re: Images in the official documentation

On 19.07.2018 14:06, Pavel Golub wrote: I disagree. From what I heard, GraphViz is the winner for now. I can give you my two cents: plantuml is another good choice Ok, please give us an example - possibly the two previous graphics. Kind regards, Jürgen

Re: Images in the official documentation

Hello, Jürgen. You wrote: JP> Our discussion about grafics in the documentation reached to the JP> conclusion that we shall use SVG, the importance to 'diff-ability' JP> is rated differently, and there is no consensus about tools. I disagree. From what I heard, GraphViz is the winner for now.

Re: Images in the official documentation

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 2/26/18 20:02, Craig Ringer wrote: > > If I were maintaining the docs in a vacuum, I'd use graphviz for > > something like that, because it's a figure that does need regular > > updates and changes. And because > >  the list of fun things to do in my life definitely

Re: Images in the official documentation

On 2/26/18 20:02, Craig Ringer wrote: > If I were maintaining the docs in a vacuum, I'd use graphviz for > something like that, because it's a figure that does need regular > updates and changes. And because >  the list of fun things to do in my life definitely does not include > hand-writing SVG.

Re: Images in the official documentation

On 26 February 2018 at 12:16, Tom Lane wrote: > Craig Ringer writes: > > Yeah, I think it'd just effectively preserve the status quo by rendering > > anyone who's willing to add images and designs to the docs unable - or > > unlikely to be willing - to

Re: Images in the official documentation

Craig Ringer writes: > On 26 February 2018 at 04:12, Steve Atkins wrote: >> Writing SVG by hand maybe doesn't seem the best idea. >> I understand the attraction to people who want to store everything as >> diffable text, but images of this sort are

Re: Images in the official documentation

> On Feb 25, 2018, at 6:45 PM, Craig Ringer wrote: > > On 26 February 2018 at 04:12, Steve Atkins wrote: > > Writing SVG by hand maybe doesn't seem the best idea. > > I understand the attraction to people who want to store everything as > diffable

Re: Images in the official documentation

On 26 February 2018 at 04:12, Steve Atkins wrote: > > Writing SVG by hand maybe doesn't seem the best idea. > > I understand the attraction to people who want to store everything as > diffable text, but images of this sort are unlikely to get updated by > others, which means

Re: Images in the official documentation

> On Feb 25, 2018, at 4:00 AM, Jürgen Purtz wrote: > > As an addition to my mail from January 2016 concerning graphics > (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/568A9148.30303%40purtz.de) I propose > to use SVG (after switching to XML) - but not an SVG which is generated by

Re: Images in the official documentation

As an addition to my mail from January 2016 concerning graphics (https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/568A9148.30303%40purtz.de) I propose to use SVG (after switching to XML) - but not an SVG which is generated by Inkscape or similar tools. Those editors generate very ugly and chatty

Re: Images in the official documentation

Oleg Bartunov writes: > On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 4:04 AM, Peter Eisentraut > wrote: >> The issue of how to manage the sources is still the same, though. > SVG format is ascii based vector format. Yeah. I think where the last discussion

Re: Images in the official documentation

Daniel Westermann writes: > Is there an agreement not to include that pictures for any reason? This has been discussed repeatedly (see the archives). We'd surely like the ability to include figures, but we've not found any tools that met the varying