On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:30 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On 19.01.23 00:45, Peter Smith wrote: > > The original $SUBJECT requirements evolved to also try to make each > > view appear on a separate page after that was suggested by DavidJ [2]. > > I was unable to achieve per-page views "without radically changing the > > document structure." [3], but DavidJ found a way [4] to do it using > > refentry. I then wrote the patch v8-0003 using that strategy, which > > after more rebasing became the v10-0001 you see today. > > > > I did prefer the view-per-page results (although I also only use HTML > > docs). But my worry is that there seem still to be a few unknowns > > about how this might affect other (not the HTML) renderings of the > > docs. If you think that risk is too great, or if you feel this patch > > will cause unwarranted link/bookmark grief, then I am happy to just > > drop it. > > I'm wary of making semantic markup changes to achieve an ad-hoc > presentation effects. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be > considered carefully and globally. > > We could change the chunking boundary to be sect2 globally. This is > easily configurable (chunk.section.depth). > > Thinking about it now, maybe this is what we need. As the documentation > grows, as it clearly does, the depth of the structure increases and > pages get longer. This can also be seen in other chapters. > > Of course, this would need to be tested and checked in more detail. >
This chunk configuration idea sounds a better approach. If somebody else wants to champion that change separately then I can maybe help to review it. Meanwhile, this pagination topic has strayed far away from the original $SUBJECT, so I guess since there is nothing else pending this thread's CF entry [1] can just be marked as "Committed" now? ------ [1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/3904/ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia