From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Steven Pousty <steve.pousty@gmail.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Isaac Morland <isaac.morland@gmail.com>
Cc: Pierre Giraud <pierre.giraud@dalibo.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2020 12:43:27 -0400
Message-ID: <15395.1587660207@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200423162302.GA4210@momjian.us>
References: <20200416230304.GA28390@alvherre.pgsql>
<17560.1587083109@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<f17a1d71-e8bf-3571-bcda-081289eccb31@2ndquadrant.com>
<26009.1587302581@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<6f47d8c5-318c-9e94-de37-57f56370625f@2ndquadrant.com>
<6024.1587657841@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20200423162302.GA4210@momjian.us>
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:04:01PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As I said, I'm happy to do the legwork of improving the markup if someone
>> will point me in the right direction. But I know next to zip about CSS,
>> so it would not be productive for me to do the basic design there ---
>> it would take too long and there would probably still be lots to criticize
>> in whatever I came up with.
> I can do the CSS if you tell me what you want.
I think the existing visual appearance is more or less agreed to, so
what we want is to reproduce that as closely as possible from some
saner markup. The first problem is to agree on what "saner markup"
is exactly.
We could possibly use margin and vertical-space CSS adjustments starting
from just using several <para>s within each table cell (one <para> for
signature, one for description, one for each example). I'm not sure
whether that meets Peter's desire for "semantic" markup though. It's not
any worse than the old way with otherwise-unlabeled <entry>s, but it's not
better either. Do we want, say, to distinguish descriptions from examples
in the markup? If so, will paras with a role attribute do, or does it
need to be something else?
I'm also not sure whether or not Peter is objecting to the way I used
<returnvalue>. That seems reasonably semantically-based to me, but since
he hasn't stated what his criteria are, I don't know if he thinks so.
(I'll admit that it's a bit of an abuse to use that for both function
return types and example results.) If that's out then we need some other
design for getting the right arrows into place.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, bruce@momjian.us, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, steve.pousty@gmail.com, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, isaac.morland@gmail.com, pierre.giraud@dalibo.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign?
In-Reply-To: <15395.1587660207@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox