Alvaro Herrera a ecrit le 22/12/2006 17:54:
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
The last PDF available on the website has some bad issues. Just take a
look at table 8-13 (page 805), table 8-18 (page 113). One more time, I
don't say you can't fix this in SGML (and I think we already talk of
this some time
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> The last PDF available on the website has some bad issues. Just take a
> look at table 8-13 (page 805), table 8-18 (page 113). One more time, I
> don't say you can't fix this in SGML (and I think we already talk of
> this some time ago). But *I* won't do it. And I think
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There's been a question posted to that bug. Would you mind replying
> to it? You don't have to create an account there. I can post your reply.
I haven't gotten any reply from my posting to the upstream mailing list
at sourceforge :-( so it's hard to tell
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Blewett wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, I have no idea what it'll take to get this patch propagated
>> into the copies people actually use, so your fix sounds good for the
>> short term.
>
>> regards, tom lane
>
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> However, I have no idea what it'll take to get this patch propagated
> into the copies people actually use, so your fix sounds good for the
> short term.
>
> regards, tom lane
I submitted the patch to gentoo
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Also, the double-run of the PDF does not fix the index. Only a
> > proper bookindex.sgml does, that, so I removed the double runs and
> > either Peter or I will work on issuing a warning when the
> > bookindex.sgml file isn't proper, so people kno
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Also, the double-run of the PDF does not fix the index. Only a
> proper bookindex.sgml does, that, so I removed the double runs and
> either Peter or I will work on issuing a warning when the
> bookindex.sgml file isn't proper, so people know to run it again.
Producing a wa
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2006 03:45 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> > I have applied the attached documentation patch to HEAD and 8.2.X to
> > document the use of Tom's patch to openjade to get ouput in a reasonable
> > amount of time.
>
> This is no longer accurate in 8.3. A w
Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2006 03:45 schrieb Bruce Momjian:
> I have applied the attached documentation patch to HEAD and 8.2.X to
> document the use of Tom's patch to openjade to get ouput in a reasonable
> amount of time.
This is no longer accurate in 8.3. A workaround has been installed in the
I have applied the attached documentation patch to HEAD and 8.2.X to
document the use of Tom's patch to openjade to get ouput in a reasonable
amount of time.
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. OpenOffice.org, for example,
> > works with DocBook XML but not SGML. There are also a plethora of XML
> > editing and publishing tools which can been used for Docbook XML which
> > are not available for SGML
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 20:27 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > Check the facts. The latest stable FOP release was more than three
> > > years ago.
> >
> > Actually it was about 8 months ago. 0.92 Beta.
>
> That is not a stable release. And the fact that the latest beta
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Check the facts. The latest stable FOP release was more than three
> > years ago.
>
> Actually it was about 8 months ago. 0.92 Beta.
That is not a stable release. And the fact that the latest beta is 8
months old doesn't impress me either.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 09:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> > A summary :
> > * to build HTML manual with XSLT :
> >make postgres.xml
> >make xslthtml
>
> Just the last command should be enough.
>
> > * to build PDF manual with XSLT :
> >make postgres.xml
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:59 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > 5. The format objects development (FOP) seems to be better maintained
> > then the dblatex/db2latex/pdflatex stuff.
>
> Check the facts. The latest stable FOP release was more than three
> years ago.
Actual
Peter Eisentraut a ecrit le 12/12/2006 09:10:
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
fop.sh postgres-A4.fo postgres-A4.pdf
I think my fop install is broken because I'm not able to build the
PDF file...
I have been using FOP on and off for many years and I've never seen it
produce any real document long
Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> A summary :
> * to build HTML manual with XSLT :
>make postgres.xml
>make xslthtml
Just the last command should be enough.
> * to build PDF manual with XSLT :
>make postgres.xml
>make postgres-A4.fo
Same here.
>fop.sh postgres-A4.fo postgres-A4.p
David Blewett wrote:
> Excuse my ignorance, but I thought XSLT stylesheets can only be used
> on XML files?
FWIW, you can use XSLT stylesheets on SGML as well, but we don't do
that.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
---(end of broadcast)--
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Of course your changes that you make from release to release for
> volumes won't be permanent
Well, of course he'd make his changes in the sources, not in the
intermediate XML file. Or he is talking about a kind of changes which
I cannot fathom at the moment.
--
Peter
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 5. The format objects development (FOP) seems to be better maintained
> then the dblatex/db2latex/pdflatex stuff.
Check the facts. The latest stable FOP release was more than three
years ago. The latest stable dblatex release was less than a month
ago.
--
Peter Eisen
Tom Lane a ecrit le 12/12/2006 02:47:
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
I also would like to reiterate the fact that the localization
efforts would appreciate not having to re-do their work for each
release.
How exactly does working from an osx translation rather than hand-edited
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does the designation of "downstream work" apply here? I was
> intending to contribute back any changes required, to enable anyone
> else to build the multiple volume version for printing.
Changes required where? AFAICS the useful content of your work wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, but for purely downstream work like that, what's the objection to
> just running the osx conversion? It seems to take just a few seconds.
>
> I'm still not seeing where we get return on our investment for
> converting the ma
David Blewett a écrit :
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet would
>> be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently only
>> has
>> an XSLT stylesheet for HTML output. In 8.3devel I've added one for XSL-FO
>>
> >>> Visual Studio has a *very* nice XML editor these days, and they
> >>> don't do SGML...
> >>>
> >>> (ok, ok, that's a joke. It's true, sure, but it's not very
> >>> relevant...)
> >>
> >> Actually it might be for Windows developers wishing to develop
> >> Windows specific sections. How doe
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Visual Studio has a *very* nice XML editor these days, and
>>> they don't do SGML...
>>>
>>> (ok, ok, that's a joke. It's true, sure, but it's not very
>>> relevant...)
>>
>> Actually it might be for Windows developers wishing to
>> develop Win
> > > The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> establish any
> > > sizable benefit from converting. As best I can tell at
> the moment,
> > > the acceptable options for editing XML will be about the same as
> > > they are for SGML: emacs, and not a lot else. I don't really see
David Blewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The benefit I'm talking about is the ability to do multiple indexes
> in one document, which is not possible with DSSSL. In order to do
> this, I would have to run the conversion *every time* I wanted to
> work on a new release of the manual to bookstores
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:53, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
>
> We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
> unreadable. Same problem as with the authoring tools: tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
>
> Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
> Aside from getting the files themselves converted,
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 21:56 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> > establish any sizable benefit from converting. As best I can
> > tell at the moment, the acceptable options for editing XML
> > will be about the same as they are for SGML: ema
> The real problem here is that you've still failed to
> establish any sizable benefit from converting. As best I can
> tell at the moment, the acceptable options for editing XML
> will be about the same as they are for SGML: emacs, and not a
> lot else. I don't really see why I should have t
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 15:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
>
> Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
> Aside from getting the files themselves converted, there's the e
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing.
Agreed, the cost of conversion is one-time ... but it's not small.
Aside from getting the files themselves converted, there's the effort
for people to find, install, and learn suitable tools,
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 14:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
>
> We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
> unreadable.
You are correct which is actually the a
"Joshua D. Drake" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Your fourth is resolved, we have the conversion per make postgres.xml.
We do not have that --- have you looked at the output? It's nigh
unreadable. Same problem as with the authoring tools: that software
doesn't think that formatting of the XML sou
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 19:07 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > The only thing I see is that you don't want to move because all the
> > tools that are available for docbook sgml are also available for
> > docbook xml.
>
> Link posted by David Blewett:
> http://groups.googl
On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 13:10 -0500, David Blewett wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet
> > would
> > be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead of the DSSSL stylesheet would
> be a step in the right direction. Actually the 8.2 branch currently only has
> an XSLT stylesheet for HTML output. In 8.3devel I've added one
Am Montag, 11. Dezember 2006 02:18 schrieb David Blewett:
> Sorry to butt in, but I'm still not sure how to do multiple indexes
> in one volume using the DSSSL stylesheets.
I'm not sure either.
> The docs I pointed to were for the XSL stylesheets.
Right. So using the XSL(T) stylesheet instead o
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In addition to the long-standing problem that there is no way to edit
> the SGML docs with any known GUI tool,
The point not in evidence is that there exists a GUI tool we'd accept
for editing XML-format docs. Can you point to some that don't mess up
XML
> In addition to the long-standing problem that there is no way to edit
> the SGML docs with any known GUI tool, we have a particular use case,
> namely producing a multi-volume set suitable for printing as books.
Well yes and no. There isn't really any good WYSIWYG tools, but there
are plenty of
On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 09:21:12AM +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> >>> OpenOfice.org.
> >> Sure, there are more
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 22:49 -0300, Mario wrote:
> On 08/12/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is a long standing support within the community to move to XML
> > including:
> >
> > Josh Berkus
> > Josh Drake
> > Robert Treat
> > Andrew Dunslane
> > David Blewett
> > David Fette
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 09:21 +0100, Guillaume Lelarge wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>> You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> >>> OpenOfice.org.
> >> Sure, there are more editin
I wrote:
> With the patch it takes me about 5 minutes to do the jade step of the
> PDF build, using this morning's SGML sources. (I don't know how to set
> the TeX configuration to get the pdfjadetex steps to go through, so I
> dunno about total time.)
OK, I read Peter's notes about suitable TeX
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 03:13 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30
> > > > > minutes, please tell us.
> > > >
> > > > See
I wrote:
> With the patch it takes me about 5 minutes to do the jade step of the
> PDF build, using this morning's SGML sources.
Ooops, that was with an -O0 build for debugging. After rebuilding with
the normal -O2 optimization, it takes about 70 seconds, just about
exactly the same as for the HT
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Since jade does not go into this kind of spiral when producing html
>> output from the same sources, I suggest that it's not jade's fault,
>> but rather crummy coding in the sgml-to-tex conversion scripts it's
>> using.
> Right. I
Tom Lane wrote:
As for authoring tools, show me one that produces SGML or XML that's
reasonably readable, and I might worry about allowing people to use it.
Most of the ones I've seen would render the doc sources unreadable for
anyone not using an authoring tool (possibly even the very same
aut
Tom Lane wrote:
> Since jade does not go into this kind of spiral when producing html
> output from the same sources, I suggest that it's not jade's fault,
> but rather crummy coding in the sgml-to-tex conversion scripts it's
> using.
Right. I fixed that, so now it takes about 15 minutes to build
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30
> > > > minutes, please tell us.
> > >
> > > See the post on this thread from :
> > >
> > > Guillaume Lelarge
> > >
> > >
On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 00:32 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> > > please tell us.
> >
> > See the post on this thread from :
> >
> > Guillaume Lelarge
> >
> > 10 minutes to generate a pdf.
>
> Right.
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> > please tell us.
>
> See the post on this thread from :
>
> Guillaume Lelarge
>
> 10 minutes to generate a pdf.
Right. So why don't we just use that?
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql
> If you know of a way to create a PDF off DocBook XML in 30 minutes,
> please tell us.
See the post on this thread from :
Guillaume Lelarge
10 minutes to generate a pdf.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.66
>
> > Hell, the only reason I have even bothered to contribute what little I
> > have to the docs is because I wrote a book in SGML, thus it is a no
> > brainer to me. Others aren't so tortured as to have done the same.
>
> I would hate to hand edit the stuff generated by something like
> OpenOf
>> The french team also uses Docbook XML and they can generate a PDF in 30
>> minutes... it takes us DAYS because of the SGML.
Has anyone looked into actually fixing the performance problem?
oprofile results for jade trying to produce tex output from our docs are
suggestive of a localized perform
Josh Berkus writes:
> As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. OpenOffice.org, for example,
> works with DocBook XML but not SGML. There are also a plethora of XML
> editing and publishing tools which can been used for Docbook XML which
> are not available for SGML. A simple look at this p
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Further, here is a real world problem that our toolset creates...
>
> I take 5 minutes, change the stylesheet for SGML. I want to see what
> my changes will look like... 3 days later, I will know.
>
> That is stupid. If it was XML, it would be 30 minutes. That is a
> workab
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:26 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Yes which is generated from our use of SGML which is the core of this
> problem and the core of the question as a whole.
>
> SGML is making working with the documentation *harder*.
>From a total outsider's point of view I have to disagr
Joshua D. Drake a écrit :
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
>>> OpenOfice.org.
>> Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML. No one disputes
>> that. But the question
On 08/12/06, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There is a long standing support within the community to move to XML
including:
Josh Berkus
Josh Drake
Robert Treat
Andrew Dunslane
David Blewett
David Fetter
Devrim Gunduz
Darcy Buskermolen
And that is just from #postgresql
And now in
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
(like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...
The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
representati
> > OO treats Docbook like a normal document. You will however loose styles
> > (like bold, italic). It does support tables, it understands
> > transformation from things like sect1 (from OO heading1) etc...
> >
> > The style loss is to be expected because Docbook doesn't contain
> > representati
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:51, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:45 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > > You can create, edit, conve
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:45 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > > > OpenOfice.org.
> > >
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 15:26, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > > OpenOfice.org.
> >
> > Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML. No one
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:58 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> > OpenOfice.org.
>
> Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML. No one disputes
> that. But the question at hand was about processin
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
> OpenOfice.org.
Sure, there are more editing options with DocBook XML. No one disputes
that. But the question at hand was about processing the DocBook.
> You are correct but XML does give us more modern and
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 21:15 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. OpenOffice.org, for
> > example, works with DocBook XML but not SGML.
>
> What does "works" mean?
You can create, edit, convert, save, and open docbook xml in
OpenOfice.
Josh Berkus wrote:
> As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. OpenOffice.org, for
> example, works with DocBook XML but not SGML.
What does "works" mean?
> There are also a
> plethora of XML editing and publishing tools which can been used for
> Docbook XML which are not available for SGML.
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 13:36 -0500, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > First of all, moving to DocBook XML will not do anything in the way of
> > improving our output processing abilities. Any tool that you can use
> > on DocBook SGML can also be used on DocBook XML and vice versa.
> >
>
> A
Peter,
First of all, moving to DocBook XML will not do anything in the way of
improving our output processing abilities. Any tool that you can use
on DocBook SGML can also be used on DocBook XML and vice versa.
As I said then, this is absolutely untrue. OpenOffice.org, for example,
wo
David Blewett wrote:
> I started work on modifying the SGML to use a set of 3 volumes, split
> at roughly 500 page intervals. I wanted to generate individual ToC's
> and indexes for each volume. I started to modify the SGML to include
> a "role" attribute for each indexterm, to tell what volume it
On Fri, 2006-12-08 at 09:09 -0500, David Blewett wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi All:
>
> I read a thread from July explaining the current status of moving to XML
> [1].
To add to this, it would take minutes to transform XML versus the days
it takes the SGML.
Jos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All:
I read a thread from July explaining the current status of moving to XML
[1].
Peter, you mention that if someone has a clear need you would be open to
switching. Let me explain the problems I've encountered with SGML.
A few months ago, I spl
76 matches
Mail list logo
