C�dric Villemain wrote:
> Bruce Momjian a �crit :
> > D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> >> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:30:52 -0300
> >> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> >>>> It is a great feature for people actually using ReST. However, the
> >>>> feature is really just a logical extension to the existing border
> >>>> attribute.
> >>> Frankly I don't understand your position. You seem to be saying that
> >>> you want the logical extension to the border feature, because it's very
> >>> easy to write, but you don't want to go to all the trouble of writing an
> >>> actual rst output format -- I guess it's a lot more code. You don't
> >>> care that your new border format is not actually rst, because you have
> >>> no need for rst.
> >> In fact I wrote it because I do want it for ReST. When I first
> >> proposed it that was my sell. I received pushback because it was for
> >> too specific a purpose so I stepped back and showed that it was simply
> >> a logical extension that happened to work as ReST input. Now it seems
> >> that unless it is 100% ReST and documented as such it will be rejected.
> >>
> >> I'm feeling the ground shift under me.
> >
> > Can you find an email that shows this; I don't remember a shift.
>
> I do remember the same : ReSt was rejecting because it was too boring to maintin
> or get a 100% compliant ouput (btw are we 100% compliant with any SQL ?)
Where was that said? URL from archives? I am not saying I don't
believe you, it is just that I don't remember anyone saying that, at
least in the thread I read:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01007.php
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
