On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 14:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> 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 argument that Gleu made to me
about moving to XML. I did find however that if you ran postgres.xml
through tidy it cleaned things up nicely.
Secondly the make postgres.xml would be a one time thing. I would
happilly take the time to get postgres.xml into a format that was
reasonable and similar to how we currently do the postgres.sgml docs.
> Same problem as with the authoring tools: that software
> doesn't think that formatting of the XML source text is important.
Well not authoring editors though. Emacs or Bluefish won't blow that
stuff away (just realized Bluefish doesn't validate :( ).
>
> regards, tom lane
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
