Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-10-14 Thread Jim Nasby
On 9/15/15 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other than html output (in particular, PDF),

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-10-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Christopher Browne wrote: > There would be some merit to some remapping to transform "creaky old > DocBook 4.2" (what we're using) to a newer version, perhaps biased towards > XML, and have our toolset merge the bits into a big XML (in DocBook 5, > presumably) file for processing using more

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-10-14 Thread Christopher Browne
On 14 October 2015 at 13:04, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 9/15/15 10:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Jim Nasby writes: >> >>> On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce either

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 12:16 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/15/15 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce >>> either html or docbook output;

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/15/15 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce >> either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other >> than html output (in particular, PDF),

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce > either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other > than html output (in particular, PDF), you're back to relying on the > exact same

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Jim Nasby
On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: I'm not sure SGML is the way to go anymore anyways. Asciidoc offers a lot of what our SGML does in a much easier to support toolchain. It's also natively supported by github, which makes it nice for others to view

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > On 9/15/15 8:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> AFAICT from a quick look at its documentation, asciidoc can produce >> either html or docbook output; so as soon as you want something other >> than html output (in particular, PDF), you're back to relying on the

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really > has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build. Who in > 2015 would use a PDF instead of HTML? > > (If there is somebody, that is fine.

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really >> has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build. Who in >> 2015 would use a PDF

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Paquier writes: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > >> I mean, I can't see that building a PDF of the documentation really > >> has much value, and I don't know even what else we can build. Who in

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > I'm not sure SGML is the way to go anymore anyways. Asciidoc offers a > lot of what our SGML does in a much easier to support toolchain. It's > also natively supported by github, which makes it nice for others to > view the output (see [1] as an

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-15 Thread Jim Nasby
On 9/14/15 6:06 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: I think the only way upstream Postgres could offer this is as a way to build a separate "book", i.e. not a chapter/section within the main book. I think it would require huge complications in

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-14 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 9/14/15 5:35 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > > Hello, > > > > The pgxs makefile (pgxs.ml) says: > > > > # DOCS -- random files to install under $PREFIX/doc/$MODULEDIR > > > > It is a bunch of files to be copied to document directory, however, > > not looks like a

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-14 Thread Michael Paquier
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > I think the only way upstream Postgres could offer this is as a way to > build a separate "book", i.e. not a chapter/section within the main > book. I think it would require huge complications in doc/src/sgml's > Makefile. Not sure it's

Re: [HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-14 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/14/15 5:35 AM, Kouhei Kaigai wrote: > Hello, > > The pgxs makefile (pgxs.ml) says: > > # DOCS -- random files to install under $PREFIX/doc/$MODULEDIR > > It is a bunch of files to be copied to document directory, however, > not looks like a variable to specify SGML source as PostgreSQL

[HACKERS] Can extension build own SGML document?

2015-09-14 Thread Kouhei Kaigai
Hello, The pgxs makefile (pgxs.ml) says: # DOCS -- random files to install under $PREFIX/doc/$MODULEDIR It is a bunch of files to be copied to document directory, however, not looks like a variable to specify SGML source as PostgreSQL core doing. Do we have way to build SGML source of