Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> What we need is tooling around a new file format that is similar or > analogous to our existing tooling, so that it is easy to edit, easy to > review, easy to build, easy to test, and so on. Otherwise, the image > files will not get maintained properly. > > As an example, if an image contains

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

On 2/17/16 8:23 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > Do we really need git history for each figure? It seems we are waiting > for a solution which will never realize. What we need is tooling around a new file format that is similar or analogous to our existing tooling, so that it is easy to edit, easy to

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

>> What's wrong with LibreOffice? > > Is there any reason to think it doesn't have the same disease mentioned > in the previously-cited thread, namely that any change trashes pretty > much the whole file? > > That might be okay for things that we only change once every ten years > or so, but

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

Tatsuo Ishii writes: >> Because no one has been able to propose a good format for storing and >> editing pictures. > What's wrong with LibreOffice? Is there any reason to think it doesn't have the same disease mentioned in the previously-cited thread, namely that any

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that >> we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any >> technical reason to remove them? > > Because no one has been able to propose a good format for storing and >

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> Gavin Flower wrote: >> On 18/02/16 10:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> >>It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that >> >>we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any >> >>technical reason to remove them?

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> Gavin Flower wrote: >> On 18/02/16 10:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> >On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> >>It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that >> >>we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any >> >>technical reason to remove them?

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

Gavin Flower wrote: > On 18/02/16 10:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >>It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that > >>we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any > >>technical reason to remove them? >

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

On 18/02/16 10:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any technical reason to remove them? Because no one has been able to propose a

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

On 2/16/16 8:17 PM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that > we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any > technical reason to remove them? Because no one has been able to propose a good format for storing and editing

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

Hello, In fact we use "make postgres.xml" to get a single XML, which we translate. We convert it to .po using xml2po (with some modifications), and then convert it back to xml (and then to sgml files with our custom script). So we have not changed sgml to xml files, and if it's more appropriate

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

17.02.2016 09:17, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> Hi. >> >> In DocBook 4.2 sgml dtd, figure tag is supported already. >> that was implemented for multi output format. > Ok, there's no technical problems with figures then. MySQL docs has > some nice figures. I am jealous. The "figure" tag is just a

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

On 수, 2016-02-17 at 12:14 +0300, Alexander Lakhin wrote: > 17.02.2016 09:17, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> In DocBook 4.2 sgml dtd, figure tag is supported already. > >> that was implemented for multi output format. > > Ok, there's no technical problems with figures then. MySQL docs has

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> Hi. > > In DocBook 4.2 sgml dtd, figure tag is supported already. > that was implemented for multi output format. Ok, there's no technical problems with figures then. MySQL docs has some nice figures. I am jealous. > I remember that very old postgresql document has some picture (eg. >

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

Hi. In DocBook 4.2 sgml dtd, figure tag is supported already. that was implemented for multi output format. I remember that very old postgresql document has some picture (eg. system architecture, ERD ...). when release new version, these might be changed, nevertheless these can not been. this

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > >> It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that >> we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any >> technical reason to remove them? >> > > I don't know the reason, but

Re: [HACKERS] Figures in docs

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:17 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that > we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any > technical reason to remove them? > I don't know the reason, but it's shame,

[HACKERS] Figures in docs

It seems there's no figures/diagrams in our docs. I vaguely recall that we used to have a few diagrams in our docs. If so, was there any technical reason to remove them? Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php