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 th
Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
>>> Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
>>> in 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
> se
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
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
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 "d
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.
>
>
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 s
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 tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
You have to distinguish between the s
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 tag, and utf-8 if no charset is given.
>
> You have to distinguish between the supported charset, and
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
Hi, Hannu,
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Are you sure it's UCS-4 ? I've always thought that XML is what is given
> in 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 Tracking&Tracing Inte
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
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
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 ı with ı, which should work.
I think it's more likely that he was running with a non-DocBook
stylesheet (his openjade command
Tom Lane wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> > I created a simple docbook document on my computer with ı and
> > ran openjade over and in the output file it is converted to ı.
>
> I experimented with that, and openjade didn't complain about it, but
> it renders in my browser (Safari) as
>
Martijn van Oosterhout writes:
> I created a simple docbook document on my computer with ı and
> ran openjade over and in the output file it is converted to ı.
I experimented with that, and openjade didn't complain about it, but
it renders in my browser (Safari) as
Have the COPY command return a
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 "m
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 doc
Martijn van Oosterhout 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 least
that's wha
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 ı in SGML
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 ı which most tools should
> > > understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind
On Sat, Sep 23, 2006 at 11:54:47AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Well you could always use te HTML4 ı which most tools should
> > understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind of
> > entity.
>
> Please review the recent thread on pgsql-docs befo
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Well you could always use te HTML4 ı 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
http://developer.po
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 p
24 matches
Mail list logo
