Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-13 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I think there's a case for putting these pages under Part V Server >> Programming (though a few are not in fact server-side code), or under >> Part VI Reference (ignoring the fact that most of the text isn't in a >> uniform reference-pa

Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-11 Thread Bruce Momjian
Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > I am still desperately unhappy with the choice to put the contrib docs > > where they were put. They are by no stretch of the imagination part of > > the "SQL Language", and there is no defense for having inserted them > > into the middle of the part, in

Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-11 Thread Albert Cervera i Areny
A Diumenge 11 Novembre 2007, Tom Lane va escriure: > I think there's a case for putting these pages under Part V Server > Programming (though a few are not in fact server-side code), or under > Part VI Reference (ignoring the fact that most of the text isn't in a > uniform reference-page style ...

Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> BTW, why are neither contrib/dblink nor contrib/spi included in the > >> conversion? > > > I see dblink: > > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/dblink.html > > Oh, in that case the question is why the contrib/db/doc/ fil

Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> BTW, why are neither contrib/dblink nor contrib/spi included in the >> conversion? > I see dblink: > http://momjian.us/main/writings/pgsql/sgml/dblink.html Oh, in that case the question is why the contrib/db/doc/ files are still there. > I assum

Re: [DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-10 Thread Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane wrote: > I am still desperately unhappy with the choice to put the contrib docs > where they were put. They are by no stretch of the imagination part of > the "SQL Language", and there is no defense for having inserted them > into the middle of the part, in front of substantially more wid

[DOCS] Placement of contrib modules in SGML documentation

2007-11-10 Thread Tom Lane
I am still desperately unhappy with the choice to put the contrib docs where they were put. They are by no stretch of the imagination part of the "SQL Language", and there is no defense for having inserted them into the middle of the part, in front of substantially more widely interesting informat