> > What we need is something that does not change regions of the file
> > that the user did not intend to modify. I think
> > horizonal-white-space-only changes could be worked around if the
> > user is careful to use diff --ignore-space-change when submitting
> > the patch, but I suspect that a
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 04:34:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a
> >> WYSWYG tool which does not mess up the source. There may be one,
> >> i
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 15:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
> >> which does not mess up the source. There may be one, it would just take
Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
>> which does not mess up the source. There may be one, it would just take a
>> fair amount of testing to find it.
> Is this
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:58, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> > o WYSIWYG - this seems unattainable because such editors are
> > going to modify the surrounding XML, which will affect
> > hand-edited changes
>
> It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG
Bruce,
> o WYSIWYG - this seems unattainable because such editors are
> going to modify the surrounding XML, which will affect
> hand-edited changes
It would be more accurate to say that we have not identified a WYSWYG tool
which does not mess up the source. There may be o
I have read the two long XML threads, and see these issues for
converting to XML:
o authoring, in two parts:
o WYSIWYG - this seems unattainable because such editors are
going to modify the surrounding XML, which will affect
hand-edited changes
o tag assistanc
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Anyway, from the sound of it whether or not there are better
> authoring tools for XML than SGML is "undetermined pending further
> investigation."
I'll be the first to welcome better editing options, but so far I have
only heard them being theorized about.
--
Peter Eisentr
Josh,
> Wait... You want a tool to automatically fix tags? You do need to know
> Docbook to write the docs JoshB. That means you need to know which tags
> are relevant to what. Something like emacs will make this easier because
> it will tell you what tags are valid for each section of the documen
> "Authoring Tool" means "not always hand-editing tags". Right now, I can't
> do anything with Emacs SGML that I couldn't do with Wordpad or Pico,
> except validate.
That is certainly not true. Emacs will correctly associate your tags
without having to write those tags, if you use Emacs correc
Josh,
> Anything that you produce from a WYSWYG editor is going to have to be
> massaged to work with PostgreSQL.Org docs.
*sigh* too bad Lyx only writes DocBook and doesn't read it.
> > * = an authoring tool is one which makes generation of the document
> > easier/faster than hand-editing tex
> Can you show me an authoring tool that does *not* think it's OK to
> mangle the low-level text in "semantically irrelevant" ways?
No. :) I mentioned this previously. Any word processor is going to blow
stuff away in an ugly way. The closest we could get is:
Create a custom style in OpenOffice
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I tried opening postgres.xml in OpenOffice 2.0, and it just showed me
>> the raw text and markup --- no indication that it understood xml at all.
>> Is there some special incantation needed?
> I f
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:34 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> 1) a) is there some way we can try various tools and check output?
>
> > OpenOffice.Org, WordPerfect, Kword, Abiword. The first two (last I
> > checked) were the only mature software supporting
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 1) a) is there some way we can try various tools and check output?
> OpenOffice.Org, WordPerfect, Kword, Abiword. The first two (last I
> checked) were the only mature software supporting Docbook output.
I tried opening postgres.xml in OpenOffice 2
> So, questions to answer:
>
> 1) Are there enhanced tools for Docbook XML, WYSWYG or otherwise, which make
> doc authoring easier and produce correct output for PostgreSQL Docs?
Anything that you produce from a WYSWYG editor is going to have to be
massaged to work with PostgreSQL.Org docs.
>
Folks,
Tom and Peter correctly point out that discussion of production tools and
authoring tools are separate, and only come together if there are tools for
XML which solve both issues, an assertion which is not yet proven.
I am one of the champions of XML simply because I know for a fact that
17 matches
Mail list logo
