From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
cc: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Getting our tables to render better in PDF output
In-reply-to: 
 <CADkLM=dE=jRnDHcwGcBKLJ4-TbgS2q2vGOskc=Jm87P++mdBKQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200212221818.GA15503@alvherre.pgsql>
 <23574.1581555393@sss.pgh.pa.us> <10810.1581883655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <5d1f5b72-1b4a-6e15-6730-d94e2252a073@gmail.com>
 <525a6c9e-a4e2-cd8f-54b6-b69f40d70289@gmail.com>
 <701.1586638307@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CADkLM=dtbn6kyt6Qoqy+mj5YOgcGK+rQ6WpkQm-cggdR2WJceQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6162.1586644916@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CADkLM=dAL86DTUEZY4rigdnB5-zTa0rQvz-fdSUmXqDV3zTQuQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <10438.1586752582@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CADkLM=caPwA=tqT-E7crtN4RWRMdGL3_N60q-V_s7xFFKahwYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <6694.1586795337@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CADkLM=dE=jRnDHcwGcBKLJ4-TbgS2q2vGOskc=Jm87P++mdBKQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Apr 2020 14:39:41 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <13739.1586804448.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 15:00:48 -0400
Message-ID: <13740.1586804448@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 12:28 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I'm not really buying into that as a requirement.  For one thing, the
>> anchor name will be 100% predictable.

> The anchor name is deterministic (or I intend it to be) but
> the existence of the link is not predictable. So while having no visible
> link is fine for internal links which we create, I'm envisioning a
> not-very-experienced reader wanting to help an even-less-experienced
> person. If they find the date_part function, and they see that the word
> "date_part" is itself clickable, they'll probably click it once, see that
> it's a link, and send the less-experienced person the anchored link instead
> of the broader page link. They're very unlikely to try to forge their own
> anchor link in the hopes that it already exists.

Meh.  I think people are going to think that a link that points at
itself is pretty silly.

Now, if the link appearing in the index were precise, people might
copy that one and use it ...

BTW, I just noticed that the way that the index is rendered on the website
is beyond awful.  The sub-items of an index entry are left-justified
instead of being indented as they ought to be (and are, if you build
the docs locally without using the website style).  This makes it look
like the sub-entries are main entries which is totally confusing.
Can somebody fix that?

			regards, tom lane