Обсуждение: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml Makefile
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > I see on postgresql.org: > > Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.16 (01 Jun 2003) > > > I used that to generate HISTORY, and I did a diff against the HISTORY I > > generated, and the only difference is that it doesn't have spaces on > > blank lines, which is even better output than mine. > > > In the future, I will use postgresql.org lynx. If you find yours > > generates similar output to that, you can keep using your local one. > > Actually, mine generates better output than that one --- it aligns > headings better. I'd suggest updating to the 2.8.5 release. > > The HISTORY versions that I just committed were made with 2.8.5rel1 > ... feel free to compare. I updated to that version of lynx but am still seeing the Migration headings left-aligned, rather than centered. I wonder if the cause is my version of the sgml tools, rather than lynx. What do you see in your HISTORY.htlm file for "Migration": ><DIV CLASS="SECT2" ><HR><H3 CLASS="SECT2" ><A NAME="AEN9" >Migration to version 7.4.2</A -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> I wonder if the cause is my version of the sgml tools, rather than lynx.
> What do you see in your HISTORY.htlm file for "Migration":
> ><DIV
> CLASS="SECT2"
> ><HR><H3
> CLASS="SECT2"
> ><A
> NAME="AEN9"
> >Migration to version 7.4.2</A
Hmm, I get
><DIV
CLASS="SECT2"
><HR><H2
CLASS="SECT2"
><A
NAME="AEN9"
>Migration to version 7.4.2</A
></H2
so the discrepancy is evidently <H2> vs <H3>. In my HISTORY.html,
"Release Notes" and "Release 7.4.2" are both <H1> and then the
Migration heading is <H2>.
So indeed it looks like the discrepancy is in the SGML stylesheet.
I'm not real sure whether the <H3> interpretation should be preferred
--- Peter, any comments?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I wonder if the cause is my version of the sgml tools, rather than lynx.
>
> > What do you see in your HISTORY.htlm file for "Migration":
>
> > ><DIV
> > CLASS="SECT2"
> > ><HR><H3
> > CLASS="SECT2"
> > ><A
> > NAME="AEN9"
> > >Migration to version 7.4.2</A
>
> Hmm, I get
>
> ><DIV
> CLASS="SECT2"
> ><HR><H2
> CLASS="SECT2"
> ><A
> NAME="AEN9"
> >Migration to version 7.4.2</A
> ></H2
>
> so the discrepancy is evidently <H2> vs <H3>. In my HISTORY.html,
> "Release Notes" and "Release 7.4.2" are both <H1> and then the
> Migration heading is <H2>.
>
> So indeed it looks like the discrepancy is in the SGML stylesheet.
> I'm not real sure whether the <H3> interpretation should be preferred
> --- Peter, any comments?
Looking at the SGML, it seems the H3 interpretation is correct. SGML
has:
<appendix id="release">
<title>Release Notes</title>
<sect1 id="release-7-4-2">
<title>Release 7.4.2</title>
<note>
<title>Release date</title>
<simpara>2004-03-08</simpara>
</note>
<para>
This release contains a variety of fixes from 7.4.1.
</para>
<sect2>
<title>Migration to version 7.4.2</title>
Appendix/release should be H1, release-7-4-2 should be H2, and migration
H3. I don't see any logic for appendix and sect1 be the same HTML
heading level because they don't seem to be the same level in SGML.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Tom Lane wrote: > So indeed it looks like the discrepancy is in the SGML stylesheet. > I'm not real sure whether the <H3> interpretation should be preferred > --- Peter, any comments? Check the version of your stylesheet. It should be visible in the <META> headers of the generated HTML somewhere.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> So indeed it looks like the discrepancy is in the SGML stylesheet.
>> I'm not real sure whether the <H3> interpretation should be preferred
>> --- Peter, any comments?
> Check the version of your stylesheet. It should be visible in the
> <META> headers of the generated HTML somewhere.
Is this what you're looking for?
<TITLE
>Release Notes</TITLE
><META
NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.59"></HEAD
><BODY
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > ><META > > NAME="GENERATOR" > CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.59"></HEAD This qualifies as ancient. Newer versions are available from http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/dsssl/index.html
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.59"></HEAD > This qualifies as ancient. Newer versions are available from > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/dsssl/index.html Okay. I see that both postgresql.org and Bruce are generating the docs with Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.7 Shall we standardize on that and lynx 2.8.5 as the current "official" versions to use for building the docs? Also, I'm running openjade 1.3 on this machine, and as I recall it was a serious pain in the arse to build. Is it worth worrying about a newer version of that? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Okay. I see that both postgresql.org and Bruce are generating the > docs with > Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.7 There is no version "1.7". This is in fact a bug; the correct version number of the latest version (which is in use at postgresql.org) is 1.78. > Shall we standardize on that and lynx 2.8.5 as the current "official" > versions to use for building the docs? Works for me. > Also, I'm running openjade 1.3 on this machine, and as I recall it > was a serious pain in the arse to build. Is it worth worrying about > a newer version of that? Well, there is 1.3.2 now, but I can't tell you how easy or hard to build that one is. There is also a 1.4 in the making, but the whole DSSSL toolchain is sort of dying.
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, I'm running openjade 1.3 on this machine, and as I recall it
>> was a serious pain in the arse to build. Is it worth worrying about
>> a newer version of that?
> Well, there is 1.3.2 now, but I can't tell you how easy or hard to build
> that one is. There is also a 1.4 in the making, but the whole DSSSL
> toolchain is sort of dying.
Having re-read my notes about installing 1.3 from source, I won't shed a
tear if it dies. Should I be thinking of installing something else
instead, and if so what?
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.59"></HEAD > > > This qualifies as ancient. Newer versions are available from > > http://docbook.sourceforge.net/projects/dsssl/index.html > > Okay. I see that both postgresql.org and Bruce are generating the docs > with > Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.7 > Shall we standardize on that and lynx 2.8.5 as the current "official" > versions to use for building the docs? 2.8.5 is a development release of lynx, not a stable one: Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.16 (01 Jun 2003) Do we want to standardize on a development version of some tools? It is only converting to text, so I guess it is OK. I downloaded the version of lynx Tom has just so I can generate the newer output. The only difference between my 2.8.3 lynx and 2.8.5 is that 2.8.5 trips spaces on blank lines used between headings, which is good. I have also rebuilt the HISTORY file in CVS to match our official style sheets. > Also, I'm running openjade 1.3 on this machine, and as I recall it was > a serious pain in the arse to build. Is it worth worrying about a newer > version of that? I can help you because I just installed new tools a few months ago. I will phone you. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > 2.8.5 is a development release of lynx, not a stable one: > Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.16 (01 Jun 2003) 2.8.5rel1 is a release version that has been out for some time. If you're running a development version, that's not my problem.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > 2.8.5 is a development release of lynx, not a stable one:
> > Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.16 (01 Jun 2003)
>
> 2.8.5rel1 is a release version that has been out for some time.
> If you're running a development version, that's not my problem.
Well, looking at:
http://lynx.browser.org/
It mentions 2.8.3 as most current, and lists 2.8.5 under Development
Versions.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> 2.8.5rel1 is a release version that has been out for some time. >> If you're running a development version, that's not my problem. > Well, looking at: > http://lynx.browser.org/ > It mentions 2.8.3 as most current, and lists 2.8.5 under Development > Versions. Why do you think that is authoritative? Freshmeat shows lynx.isc.org as the home site for lynx, and http://lynx.isc.org/release/lynx2.8.5.tar.gz as the current release. regards, tom lane
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 12:42:46 -0500, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > > 2.8.5 is a development release of lynx, not a stable one: > > Lynx Version 2.8.5dev.16 (01 Jun 2003) > > Do we want to standardize on a development version of some tools? It is > only converting to text, so I guess it is OK. > > I downloaded the version of lynx Tom has just so I can generate the > newer output. The only difference between my 2.8.3 lynx and 2.8.5 is > that 2.8.5 trips spaces on blank lines used between headings, which is > good. I think the major advantage of 2.8.5 is https support. That isn't needed for what you are doing, but is a good reason for someone to use it as their browser in preference to earlier versions. I am using 2.8.5dev.9 and it seems to work reasonably well. The new scroll bar function has an issue (copying text accross the scroll bar doesn't work) so I don't use that feature.