Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I played with this further. My conclusion is that SVG as a source
> format is not workable. Aside from the tooling issues that are being
> discussed, which might be solvable, I think it's not the right level of
> abstraction.
It does seem like using SVG as an intermediate format rather than a source
format might be a better idea.
> (We can have some discussion about whether we want to commit the
> intermediate SVG files and what the directory layout should be etc. I
> didn't bother with that in my patch yet.)
Ideally, we'd treat them much as we do for bison output files:
we'll supply them in tarballs but you'd better have the relevant
tools if you want to build docs from a git pull. However, that
may be assuming too much about the portability of the tools ...
regards, tom lane
