Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
in xml tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
You have to distinguish between the supported charset, and the document
encoding.
UCS-4 and UTF-8 are both encodings for UNICODE
see:
Hi, Bruce,
Bruce Momjian wrote:
I don't think that any of our SGML documentation is actually in UCS-4
encoding.
The source files use nothing beyond plain ASCII (and should remain that
way, IMHO) so there isn't any need to inquire very far into exactly what
the toolchain thinks the document
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On the other hand, I don't understand why DocBook would be Latin-1
only. What would be the point of that limitation? Some googling
seems to reveal that people indeed uses other charsets, UTF-8 in
particular (but also Big5, Latin-2, etc), so apparently this isn't
set in
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-09-24 kell 10:20, kirjutas Peter Eisentraut:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On the other hand, I don't understand why DocBook would be Latin-1
only. What would be the point of that limitation? Some googling
seems to reveal that people indeed uses other charsets, UTF-8 in
Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
in xml tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
You have to distinguish between the supported charset, and the document
encoding.
HTH,
Markus
--
Markus Schaber | Logical TrackingTracing
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 10:20:22AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On the other hand, I don't understand why DocBook would be Latin-1
only. What would be the point of that limitation? Some googling
seems to reveal that people indeed uses other charsets, UTF-8 in
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-09-24 kell 14:56, kirjutas Markus Schaber:
Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
in xml tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
You have to distinguish between the supported charset, and the
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Ühel kenal päeval, P, 2006-09-24 kell 14:56, kirjutas Markus Schaber:
Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
in xml tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
You have to distinguish between
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
If we want to quote references, we should quote the XML standard. For
example, see here to see the exact charset supported by XML:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets.
The actual cause of the processing problems we have been seeing are the
character set
Ühel kenal päeval, E, 2006-09-25 kell 00:23, kirjutas Peter Eisentraut:
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
If we want to quote references, we should quote the XML standard. For
example, see here to see the exact charset supported by XML:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-xml11-20060816/#charsets.
The
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that any of our SGML documentation is actually in UCS-4
encoding.
The source files use nothing beyond plain ASCII (and should remain that
way, IMHO) so there isn't any need to inquire very far into exactly what
the toolchain thinks the
Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that any of our SGML documentation is actually in UCS-4
encoding.
The source files use nothing beyond plain ASCII (and should remain that
way, IMHO) so there isn't any need to inquire very far into exactly what
the
On Sun, Sep 24, 2006 at 07:38:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Hannu Krosing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think that any of our SGML documentation is actually in UCS-4
encoding.
The source files use nothing beyond plain ASCII (and should remain that
way, IMHO) so there isn't any need to
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 12:29:05PM -0300, Tom Lane wrote:
Log Message:
---
We're going to have to spell dotless i as plain i, because dotless i is
not in the character set supported by DocBook nor standard HTML. (Sorry
Volkan.) Also replace random character-set references by a
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Well you could always use te HTML4 #305; which most tools should
understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind of
entity.
Please review the recent thread on pgsql-docs before reiterating all the
suggestions.
--
Peter Eisentraut
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:54:47AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Well you could always use te HTML4 #305; which most tools should
understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind of
entity.
Please review the recent thread on pgsql-docs before
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:54:47AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Well you could always use te HTML4 #305; which most tools should
understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind of
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 08:49:02AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
That's not how I understand it. The document encoding is only related
to how high-bit characters are interpreted, I am told by Peter, but for
some reason the toolchain just doesn't support UTF8, even though if you
use #305; in
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
So to me (a more docbook novice) it seems like it's the stylesheet
that's limiting you to latin1, not the docbook parser.
But the stylesheet in question is part of the basic docbook
infrastructure, so the above distinction is academic. (Or at
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Oh sorry, it wasn't clear from the commit entry. It's not that
DocBook doesn't support the character or that it can't be
represented. It's just not supported in the document encoding we're
using.
No, no, and no.
The reason that it doesn't work is that the
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 12:27:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
To my mind the real problem is that one of the principal output formats
we are interested in is HTML, and there is no dotless-i entity in any
version of the HTML standard. I trust I need not point out again the
difference between my
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
I created a simple docbook document on my computer with inodot; and
ran openjade over and in the output file it is converted to #305;.
I experimented with that, and openjade didn't complain about it, but
it renders in my browser (Safari) as
Have
Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
I created a simple docbook document on my computer with inodot; and
ran openjade over and in the output file it is converted to #305;.
I experimented with that, and openjade didn't complain about it, but
it renders in my
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So maybe your Openjade is not exactly the same
Martijn was using, because what I understood was that Openjade replaced
the inodot; with #305;, which should work.
I think it's more likely that he was running with a non-DocBook
stylesheet (his openjade
24 matches
Mail list logo
