After some discussion on IRC about improvments that could be made to
the documentation I have a suggestion. Note: I don't have much time to
work on it and I'm not an sgml-wiz.
(Note: Using .html names of things as I don't know what sgml makes what)
The basic idea is to make the equivalent of sq
Josh Berkus wrote:
> As we've always accepted doc patches up until a few days before
> release, this shouldn't be a problem, yes? (Besides, I still need to
> fix the SGML libraries on my laptop ... )
If you plan to do major outline reorganizations, I suggest that you do
them somewhat sooner than
Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One idea to solve it would to have the flat list link to
> functions-foo.html#FOOBAR - this would allow both methods of
> organization and only having function definitions in one spot.
Basically what you're proposing is an index.
I am not sure if DocBook cou
Peter,
> If you plan to do major outline reorganizations, I suggest that you do
> them somewhat sooner than a few days before release, because there is
> also a release management effort involved in the documentation. But
> you can always plug in your latest measurements any time.
No massive re-
On Mon, 2004-08-09 at 16:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > One idea to solve it would to have the flat list link to
> > functions-foo.html#FOOBAR - this would allow both methods of
> > organization and only having function definitions in one spot.
>
> Basically what yo
Tom Lane wrote:
> I am not sure if DocBook could handle generating an index covering
> just functions, or if we'd have to merge it with the general index.
I think it's possible -- with a bit of programming work. I doubt,
however, that it's going to be all that useful. We're already having
trou
Rod Taylor wrote:
> If we were using XML based docbook we could use an xmlinclude to
> generate this type of content on the fly during output generation.
We can also include random SGML files "on the fly". This is how the
index is built in the first place. I doubt that will be the problem.
> T
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > I am not sure if DocBook could handle generating an index covering
> > just functions, or if we'd have to merge it with the general
> > index.
>
> I think it's possible -- with a bit of programming work. I dou
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> A function index would be quite unreliable ("It's not in the
>> function index, so it's not supported."). Feel free to add general
>> index entries for all functions, though.
> Where?
On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 05:34:56PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 11:20:33PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> A function index would be quite unreliable ("It's not in the
> >> function index, so it's not supported."). Feel free to a
David Fetter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think Jeff's original point was that he wanted some kind of index
> for all functions, not just ones you already know how to classify.
I thought his point was that he didn't fully know how the docs have
already classified functions, and therefore didn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
