From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Message-Id: <200612122244.kBCMim608442@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: Switching to XML
In-Reply-To: <19134.1165688326@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:44:48 -0500 (EST)
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>,
	pgsql-docs@postgresql.org, David Blewett <david@dawninglight.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> writes:
> > As I said then, this is absolutely untrue.  OpenOffice.org, for example, 
> > works with DocBook XML but not SGML.  There are also a plethora of XML 
> > editing and publishing tools which can been used for Docbook XML which 
> > are not available for SGML.  A simple look at this page: 
> > http://wiki.docbook.org/topic/DocBookAuthoringTools
> > .... shows that there are more than twice as many authoring tools which 
> > support only XML as support SGML -- and that most of the tools which 
> > support SGML are out-of-maintenance.
> 
> This is confusing authoring tools (ie, stuff for more or less WYSIWYG
> editing of the document source) with output generation tools.
> 
> As for authoring tools, show me one that produces SGML or XML that's
> reasonably readable, and I might worry about allowing people to use it.
> Most of the ones I've seen would render the doc sources unreadable for
> anyone not using an authoring tool (possibly even the very same
> authoring tool).  We are not going to move in that direction
> because it would piss off the people who do the bulk of the work now.

And diffs would be either very large or useless.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   bruce@momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +