Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>> This is a step forward?
> Not true. If you embed pagebreak commands *in the source* then those
> breaks *must* be reevaluated every time the docs change. If content is
> added or removed, the appropriate place for a page break will likely
> change, so things must be tweaked again.
Of course, but my point is that you don't have to revisit such decisions
in areas of the docs that haven't changed since last time. The
importance of this depends on the stability of the docs, naturally...
> No argument that TeX is a wonderful tool. But it is trading one set of
> problems for another, not fixing every criticism you have.
Agreed --- but the toolchain we are currently using seems to have
considerably more than its fair share of problems.
> At the moment, my life will be easier without having to argue religion,
> so I can get back to preparing docs ;)
Certainly we aren't going to change toolchains at this point in the 7.1
cycle. I'm just opining that it would make sense to take another look
at an SGML-to-TeX-based process in the future --- especially if we have
someone who is willing to put active effort into improving the docs
toolchain.
regards, tom lane
