no more SGML empty tags
In XML, empty tags such as </> are no longer allowed. In preparation
for converting the documentation to DocBook XML, I have committed a
patch that expands all such empty tags. There is also now a warning
from onsgmls when empty tags are used. (There is no -werror option,
unfortunately.)
(I have found that in a fully tagged SGML source file, an editor's XML
tab completion works much better, so maybe try that if you want to avoid
additional typing.)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
In XML, empty tags such as </> are no longer allowed. In preparation
for converting the documentation to DocBook XML, I have committed a
patch that expands all such empty tags. There is also now a warning
from onsgmls when empty tags are used. (There is no -werror option,
unfortunately.)
Just out of curiosity, did you do the work (expanding the empty tags)
manually or using some tools? We are using SGML DocBook in the
Pgpool-II project and a little bit annoyed by the empty tags (for
example emacs auto indentation does not work with empty tags).
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 10/17/17 20:09, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
In XML, empty tags such as </> are no longer allowed. In preparation
for converting the documentation to DocBook XML, I have committed a
patch that expands all such empty tags. There is also now a warning
from onsgmls when empty tags are used. (There is no -werror option,
unfortunately.)Just out of curiosity, did you do the work (expanding the empty tags)
manually or using some tools? We are using SGML DocBook in the
Pgpool-II project and a little bit annoyed by the empty tags (for
example emacs auto indentation does not work with empty tags).
I used the tools provided in the "Docbook 5.x" thread, in particular the
sgml2xml.pl script. I think you should be able to use that for your
documentation as well.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Peter,
Just out of curiosity, did you do the work (expanding the empty tags)
manually or using some tools? We are using SGML DocBook in the
Pgpool-II project and a little bit annoyed by the empty tags (for
example emacs auto indentation does not work with empty tags).I used the tools provided in the "Docbook 5.x" thread, in particular the
sgml2xml.pl script. I think you should be able to use that for your
documentation as well.
Thank you for the info!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
In XML, empty tags such as </> are no longer allowed. In preparation
for converting the documentation to DocBook XML, I have committed a
patch that expands all such empty tags. There is also now a warning
from onsgmls when empty tags are used. (There is no -werror option,
unfortunately.)
I just want to point out that this patch has more or less entirely
destroyed any hope of cleanly back-patching documentation changes.
Should we consider applying the same transformation to the back
branches?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 10/19/17 11:11, Tom Lane wrote:
I just want to point out that this patch has more or less entirely
destroyed any hope of cleanly back-patching documentation changes.Should we consider applying the same transformation to the back
branches?
Good point. There is an additional issue to consider about
backpatching, about which I have started a separate thread. It might
depend on the outcome of that what we want to do here.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs