Arguments pro and contra diagrams are not the central focus of SGML to
XML conversion, nevertheless: "Diagrams" didn't mean any binary format -
only SVN or any other text-format is acceptable. And: if the SVN source
is generated by any program like Inkscape it tends to get unreadable.
But if we develop a SVN-library with our own predefined graphical
elements, the SVN source gets very clear. The discussion of 2011
mentioned below was continued in 2016:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5690218B.9060103%40purtz.de.
Regards, Jürgen Purtz
On 23.08.2016 16:43, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>>> Really, what change we need, it is conversion from SGML to XML format.
>>> It would solve some real problems, such as ability to include diagrams
>>> in the docs,
> This argument sounds weak to me. Last time when I proposed to include
> diagrams in the docs in the pgsql-hackers list, some developers were
> against the idea because if the diagram is binary, it's hard to
> maintain in git. However up to now, there's no consensus that which
> text base diagram source (which allows to generate real diagrams from
> it) is good for our purpose. I don't see why just migrating to XML
> solves the problem.
>
> (the discussion on diagrams stopped in 2011, as far as I know)
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1307972167.2862.518.camel@core2
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am not against migrating to XML. I just want to
> say that let's not pretend that migrating to XML would solve all the
> problems we have.
>
> Best regards,
> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
>
