David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In addition to the long-standing problem that there is no way to edit
> the SGML docs with any known GUI tool,
The point not in evidence is that there exists a GUI tool we'd accept
for editing XML-format docs. Can you point to some that don't mess up
XML
> In addition to the long-standing problem that there is no way to edit
> the SGML docs with any known GUI tool, we have a particular use case,
> namely producing a multi-volume set suitable for printing as books.
Well yes and no. There isn't really any good WYSIWYG tools, but there
are plenty of
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:21:12AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> > 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
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 22:49 -0300, Mario wrote:
> 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 Fette
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 09:21 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> > 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 editin
I wrote:
> With the patch it takes me about 5 minutes to do the jade step of the
> PDF build, using this morning's SGML sources. (I don't know how to set
> the TeX configuration to get the pdfjadetex steps to go through, so I
> dunno about total time.)
OK, I read Peter's notes about suitable TeX
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 03:13 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30
> > > > > minutes, please tell us.
> > > >
> > > > See
I wrote:
> With the patch it takes me about 5 minutes to do the jade step of the
> PDF build, using this morning's SGML sources.
Ooops, that was with an -O0 build for debugging. After rebuilding with
the normal -O2 optimization, it takes about 70 seconds, just about
exactly the same as for the HT
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Since jade does not go into this kind of spiral when producing html
>> output from the same sources, I suggest that it's not jade's fault,
>> but rather crummy coding in the sgml-to-tex conversion scripts it's
>> using.
> Right. I
Tom Lane wrote:
As for authoring tools, show me one that produces SGML or XML that's
reasonably readable, and I might worry about allowing people to use it.
Most of the ones I've seen would render the doc sources unreadable for
anyone not using an authoring tool (possibly even the very same
aut
Tom Lane wrote:
> Since jade does not go into this kind of spiral when producing html
> output from the same sources, I suggest that it's not jade's fault,
> but rather crummy coding in the sgml-to-tex conversion scripts it's
> using.
Right. I fixed that, so now it takes about 15 minutes to build
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30
> > > > minutes, please tell us.
> > >
> > > See the post on this thread from :
> > >
> > > Guillaume Lelarge
> > >
> > >
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> > > please tell us.
> >
> > See the post on this thread from :
> >
> > Guillaume Lelarge
> >
> > 10 minutes to generate a pdf.
>
> Right.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> > please tell us.
>
> See the post on this thread from :
>
> Guillaume Lelarge
>
> 10 minutes to generate a pdf.
Right. So why don't we just use that?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql
> If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> please tell us.
See the post on this thread from :
Guillaume Lelarge
10 minutes to generate a pdf.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.66
>
> > 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.
>
> I would hate to hand edit the stuff generated by something like
> OpenOf
>> The french team also uses Docbook XML and they can generate a PDF in 30
>> minutes... it takes us DAYS because of the SGML.
Has anyone looked into actually fixing the performance problem?
oprofile results for jade trying to produce tex output from our docs are
suggestive of a localized perform
Josh Berkus writes:
> 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 p
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Also, if PDF indexes depend on HTML, perhaps HTML should be a
>> dependency of PDF in the Makefile.
> By that logic, HTML should also depend on HTML. I don't know how people
> would like that.
The real point is that the "jade" s
Jim Nasby wrote:
> Also, if PDF indexes depend on HTML, perhaps HTML should be a
> dependency of PDF in the Makefile.
By that logic, HTML should also depend on HTML. I don't know how people
would like that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
-
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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
> workab
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:26 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 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*.
>From a total outsider's point of view I have to disagr
Hi Jim,
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 18:07 -0800, Jim Nasby wrote:
> > http://www.gunduz.org/postgresql/texmf.cnf
>
> ISTM that info should be in CVS, maybe in the README.
I was thinking something same. But I'd like to wait until I build a fine
PDF.
> Also, if PDF indexes depend on HTML, perhaps HTML
Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> 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
24 matches
Mail list logo
