Re: Building PDFs error: \pdfendlink ended up in different nesting level than \pd

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar abr 26 12:44:39 -0300 2011:
>>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>>> Would it work to move only some?

>>> I think moving some would be even worse than what we have now, unless
>>> you can propose some logic about why they would be split.

>> Remember that this thread is about someone being unable to build a PDF
>> from our docs (and the proposed workaround being "insert more page
>> breaks"), not about how logical the documentation is.
>>
>> In any case, the ones I listed are the ones that have more structure
>> documentation-wise (which also are the ones that have received more
>> attention and thus are of more interest to users), so there is some
>> logic behind it.
>>
>> Am I saying that not all contrib modules are created equal?  Yes, I am.
>> So sue me.

> It is hard to see how a user is going to guess which ones are better
> than others when trying to find something in the docs.  I think we are
> going to need logical categories if we want to split them up.

I don't think this works.  Aside from the illogicality, what will you do
when somebody works a bit harder on one of the modules that have "short"
documentation?  Push it over into the other appendix in the next
release?  Ugh.

Unlike Bruce, I don't have any problem with pushing them all up to
chapter level.  One point of such a change is to make them more visible,
so I do not see it as a "disadvantage" that they'd all be visible in the
TOC --- more the opposite.

            regards, tom lane