Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87F2D475CA5 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from squire.barchord.com (squire.barchord.com [216.194.67.18]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 206FA475B65 for ; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:56:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.253] (CPE00508b028d7d-CM00803785c5e0.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [24.103.51.175]) by squire.barchord.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B9732C; Sat, 17 Aug 2002 13:56:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Documentation DTD From: Rod Taylor To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Date: 17 Aug 2002 13:56:03 -0400 Message-Id: <1029606964.29972.25.camel@jester> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200208/10 X-Sequence-Number: 1428 On Sat, 2002-08-17 at 11:47, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Rod Taylor writes: > > > This one is pretty simple. It's been announced that the docbook group > > isn't looking to continue with SGML. > > I don't know where you got this from, but it's not true. DocBook 5 will > support SGML. And as long as they publish DTDs you can use them with SGML > tools anyway. Yes, jade and friends will work. But Fop is quickly catching up to the dsssl abilities and can already do some things much cleaner (title pages, headers and footers). Anyway, XML or SGML doesn't really matter. There are a number of enhancements I'd like to make to the doc process which won't be affected either way. Auto-generated example output, and others to help things stay in sync.