Subject: Re: House style for DocBook documentation?
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>,
 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <201901191335.kbjzsoefmkoa@alvherre.pgsql>
 <5C438776.9080103@anastigmatix.net>
 <7c345302-ade1-eedf-dc33-47cc40da4943@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
 Markus Winand <markus.winand@winand.at>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
From: Chapman Flack <chap@anastigmatix.net>
Message-ID: <5C4B1F2F.2000106@anastigmatix.net>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:37:35 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7c345302-ade1-eedf-dc33-47cc40da4943@2ndquadrant.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 01/25/19 09:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 19/01/2019 21:24, Chapman Flack wrote:
>> (thinks to self half-seriously about an XSL transform for generating
>> printed output that could preserve link-texted links, add raised numbers,
>> and produce a numbered URLs section at the back)
> 
> External links already create footnotes in the PDF output.  Is that
> different from what you are saying?

That might, only, indicate that I was just thinking aloud in email and
had not gone and checked in PDF output to see how the links were handled.

Yes, it could very possibly indicate that.

If they are already processed that way, does that mean the

o  Do not use text with <ulink> so the URL appears in printed output

in README.links should be considered obsolete, and removed even, and
doc authors should feel free to put link text in <ulink> without
hesitation?

Regards,
-Chap