On 06.09.24 10:50, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
For the PG community I would like to raise the question: Do we need
DocBook in the distro of any operating system? In the past we developed
some stylesheets to adopt DocBook to our needs. They are part of PG's
distro and refer to the standard with statemen
I took another look at this issue, and found that no Red Hat distro is
yet shipping DocBook 5.2; not even Fedora 40 which is bleeding edge.
So I would have to obtain and manually install the relevant DTDs
and style sheets, as would a lot of other contributors. I'm less
familiar with the Debian ec
=?UTF-8?Q?J=C3=BCrgen_Purtz?= writes:
> [ conversion to DocBook 5.2 ]
I took another look at this issue, and found that no Red Hat distro is
yet shipping DocBook 5.2; not even Fedora 40 which is bleeding edge.
So I would have to obtain and manually install the relevant DTDs
and style sheets, as w
On 27.09.22 09:12, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
Yeah, I think we'd have to convert all the supported versions to
make this palatable. If the conversion is sufficiently automated,
that might not be a big lift. (If it's*not* automated, I think
the change would never get off the ground even for HEAD, bec
Yeah, I think we'd have to convert all the supported versions to
make this palatable. If the conversion is sufficiently automated,
that might not be a big lift. (If it's*not* automated, I think
the change would never get off the ground even for HEAD, because
the docs are too much of a moving ta
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 05:42:32PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 01:15:08PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause great
> >> pain. So I repeat my question, what are the benefits of making th
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 01:15:08PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>> OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause great
>> pain. So I repeat my question, what are the benefits of making this
>> change? They better be very very substantial.
> Would we b
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 01:15:08PM +0200, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Sep-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>
> > -
> > +
> > User-Defined Types
>
> OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause great
> pain. So I repeat my question, what are the benefits of making this
> chan
On 05.09.22 11:50, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
Therefore, we should consider to introduce another validator. During the
migration phase,
we have used **jing**. It's Java, it's fast, the error messages are very
precise. But there
are many others:https://relaxng.org/#validators. Should we possibly provid
On 05.09.22 14:15, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
Le lun. 5 sept. 2022 à 13:14, Alvaro Herrera
a écrit :
On 2022-Sep-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> -
> +
> User-Defined Types
OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause
great
pain. So I repeat my q
Le lun. 5 sept. 2022 à 13:14, Alvaro Herrera a
écrit :
> On 2022-Sep-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>
> > -
> > +
> >User-Defined Types
>
> OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause great
> pain. So I repeat my question, what are the benefits of making this
> change? They
On 2022-Sep-05, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> -
> +
> User-Defined Types
OK, these seem quite significant changes that are likely to cause great
pain. So I repeat my question, what are the benefits of making this
change? They better be very very substantial.
--
Álvaro HerreraBreisgau, D
On 05.09.22 11:59, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
Will the markup be similar enough to not carry a significant risk of
introducing pain for backpatching doc patches?
There are many changes. Most of them are systematically and others are
individual, which is more painful. To give you an impression wh
> On 5 Sep 2022, at 11:50, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
>
> On 04.09.22 17:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> What changes?
>> I doubt we'll want to adopt a new version immediately after release,
>> since we want to stay compatible with older systems.
>
> The migration isn't a matter of days. It's a huge step
On 04.09.22 17:39, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
What changes?
I doubt we'll want to adopt a new version immediately after release,
since we want to stay compatible with older systems.
The migration isn't a matter of days. It's a huge step because nearly
all files are touched and we have to act carefu
On 2022-Sep-04, Jürgen Purtz wrote:
> DocBook 5.2 is around the corner [1], we use DocBook 4.5 which is 'feature
> frozen' since 2006, and there are even ideas for DocBook 6.x [2].
What changes?
I doubt we'll want to adopt a new version immediately after release,
since we want to stay compatible
16 matches
Mail list logo
