Re: Can extension build own SGML document?
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Can extension build own SGML document? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55F8ED0E.30803@gmx.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Can extension build own SGML document? (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Can extension build own SGML document?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/15/15 11:45 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> 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 creaky docbook toolchain we use now. Only with one extra >> dependency in front of it. >> >> Personally I never look at anything but the HTML rendering, but I doubt >> that dropping support for all other output formats would fly :-( > > Just out of curiosity, really? Man pages are in wide use, I think. > 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? PDF is actually kind of neat for searches across the whole document.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: