Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32 Yes, I know. The Point I wanted to make was that the document encoding is independent from the allowed charset (except having to be a subset). That is what XML entities were defined for. So even in an document using LATIN-1 as encoding, the charset still is Unicode, giving us the possibility to use entities; to use non-latin1 characters. HTH, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical TrackingTracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 encoding is. The issue at hand here is what the *output* character set is, which is to say the document character set if I have the jargon right. That is the space over which we are permitted to use -entities. Just for reference, if we could support UTF8, I was hoping to add non-Latin names as alternates to the ASCII versions, so we could have Japanese and Russian-lettered names in the release notes. I thought it would be a nice touch. We don't need UTF8 encoding for this. It's also possible using ASCII encoding + #4711; entities. But we need the Charset to be Unicode. HTH, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical TrackingTracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 stone. (I admit that they mainly talk about XML Docbook though). DocBook SGML is Latin 1; DocBook XML, like all XML, is UCS-4. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 particular (but also Big5, Latin-2, etc), so apparently this isn't set in stone. (I admit that they mainly talk about XML Docbook though). DocBook SGML is Latin 1; DocBook XML, like all XML, is UCS-4. 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. -- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in Europe! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 particular (but also Big5, Latin-2, etc), so apparently this isn't set in stone. (I admit that they mainly talk about XML Docbook though). DocBook SGML is Latin 1; DocBook XML, like all XML, is UCS-4. This sheds a new light on the XML vs. SGML thing you said before. While it's not necessarily compelling enough to force a switch, it is a substantive difference that we can actually see. Cheers, D -- David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://fetter.org/ phone: +1 415 235 3778AIM: dfetter666 Skype: davidfetter Remember to vote! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 document encoding. UCS-4 and UTF-8 are both encodings for UNICODE see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32 HTH, Markus -- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 the supported charset, and the document encoding. UCS-4 and UTF-8 are both encodings for UNICODE see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-32 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. A little lower down it defines the encodings allowed too. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 definitions in the SGML declarations of the respective document types. For DocBook SGML 4.2: CHARSET BASESET ISO 646:1983//CHARSET International Reference Version (IRV)//ESC 2/5 4/0 DESCSET 0 9 UNUSED 9 2 9 11 2 UNUSED 13 113 14 18 UNUSED 32 9532 127 1 UNUSED BASESET ISO Registration Number 100//CHARSET ECMA-94 Right Part of Latin Alphabet Nr. 1//ESC 2/13 4/1 DESCSET 128 32 UNUSED 160 96 32 For XML: CHARSET BASESET ISO Registration Number 177//CHARSET ISO/IEC 10646-1:1993 UCS-4 with implementation level 3//ESC 2/5 2/15 4/6 DESCSET 09 UNUSED 92 9 112 UNUSED 131 13 14 18 UNUSED 32 95 32 1271 UNUSED 128 32 UNUSED 16055136 160 55296 2048 UNUSED -- surrogates -- 57344 8190 57344 655342 UNUSED -- FFFE and -- 65536 1048576 65536 -- 16 planes outside BMP -- -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 actual cause of the processing problems we have been seeing are the character set definitions in the SGML declarations of the respective document types. I see charsets, but where are encodings defined ? I don't think that any of our SGML documentation is actually in UCS-4 encoding. -- Hannu Krosing Database Architect Skype Technologies OÜ Akadeemia tee 21 F, Tallinn, 12618, Estonia Skype me: callto:hkrosing Get Skype for free: http://www.skype.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 document encoding is. The issue at hand here is what the *output* character set is, which is to say the document character set if I have the jargon right. That is the space over which we are permitted to use -entities. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 toolchain thinks the document encoding is. The issue at hand here is what the *output* character set is, which is to say the document character set if I have the jargon right. That is the space over which we are permitted to use -entities. Just for reference, if we could support UTF8, I was hoping to add non-Latin names as alternates to the ASCII versions, so we could have Japanese and Russian-lettered names in the release notes. I thought it would be a nice touch. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 inquire very far into exactly what the toolchain thinks the document encoding is. The issue at hand here is what the *output* character set is, which is to say the document character set if I have the jargon right. That is the space over which we are permitted to use -entities. What you're talking about is generally referred to as the character repertoire, the abstract set of characters a document is considered to be composed of. For example: HTML4 (and XML IIRC) explicitly defines the character repertoire to be Unicode, even though the character encoding may only point to a subset of the total. Any others can be generated via the xxx; escape syntax. I'm surprised about the difference in installations. I didn't use your -c option because that directory does not exist on my computer, but maybe that's all the difference... http://www.unicode.org/unicode/reports/tr17/ Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i as plain i, because
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 pointer to the actual standard. Well you could always use te HTML4 #305; which most tools should understand. At least browsers have good support for this kind of entity. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i as plain i, because
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 http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i as plain i, because
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 reiterating all the suggestions. 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. Sorry for the noise. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 entity. Please review the recent thread on pgsql-docs before reiterating all the suggestions. 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. 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 SGML it does come out right in HTML, but new toolchains throw an error for it. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 SGML it does come out right in HTML, but new toolchains throw an error for it. Dunno about UTF-8, but openjade only supports one character repertoire, and that's Unicode (under character handling in the man page). According to the docbook reference, a way to specify the dotless i is inodot; http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/documentation/reference/html/iso-lat2.html But it's part of Latin-2, and if your stylesheet declares latin1 as the only valid characters, then that character is invalid, no matter how you represent it. I was just surprised, because inodot; has been part of docbook since version 3, which is quite some time ago now. So to me (a more docbook novice) it seems like it's the stylesheet that's limiting you to latin1, not the docbook parser. Anyway, the problem has been solved, so we can all get back to testing the beta now. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 least that's what Peter stated upthread.) 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 browser recognizes this construct and it's in the standard. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i as plain i, because
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 document character set for DocBook is Latin 1, so any attempt to refer to a character not in this set is going to fail. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 browser recognizes this construct and it's in the standard. Sure there is, HTML4 includes all of Unicode, thus also the dotless-i. They gave up assigning names to them after latin1, but numerical references are in the standard also (decimal and hex). 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;. Openjade knows how to generate valid character references. The input file is attached, I compiled it with the command: openjade -V draft-mode -wall -wno-unused-param -wno-empty -i output-html -t sgml /tmp/a.sgml For dsl file just copy the stylesheet.dsl file in the postgresql source tree. Why it doesn't work in the current docs I don't know, but I think we can rule out limitations of HTML or Docbook. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/ From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate. !-- $PostgreSQL: pgsql/doc/src/sgml/postgres.sgml,v 1.78 2006/09/14 13:40:28 teodor Exp $ -- !DOCTYPE article PUBLIC -//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.2//EN docbook/dtd/xml/4.2/docbookx.dtd article articleinfo title inodot; #305; /title /articleinfo section titleIntroduction/title para inodot; #305; /para /section /article signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 the COPY command return a command tag that includes the number of rows copied (Volkan Yazinodot;cinodot;) So that hardly looks like a portable solution either. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 browser (Safari) as Have the COPY command return a command tag that includes the number of rows copied (Volkan Yazinodot;cinodot;) Well, if I put a inodot; into an HTML document and open it on my browser (Epiphany, which is Mozilla-based), it surely looks like verbatim inodot;. However, if I replace it with #305; then it looks like a dotless i. 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. Does your browser display it correctly if you replace manually with #305;? 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 stone. (I admit that they mainly talk about XML Docbook though). -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] pgsql: We're going to have to spell dotless i
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 command did not explicitly select a catalog and stylesheet the way that our Makefiles do). Or just a different version of the stylesheet. I'm testing with whatever ships in Fedora Core 5. I see definitions of inodot; in some of the files under /usr/share/sgml, but evidently none of them are included by docbook... Does your browser display it correctly if you replace manually with #305;? Doesn't really matter whether it does or not, since my gripe about that is that DocBook rejects it. On the other hand, I don't understand why DocBook would be Latin-1 only. I'm surprised too that it couldn't be easily overridden. Peter, any idea why not? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
