Re: DocBook 5.2

2024-09-06 Thread Jürgen Purtz

I took another look at this issue, and found that no Red Hat distro is
yet shipping DocBook 5.2; not even Fedora 40 which is bleeding edge.
So I would have to obtain and manually install the relevant DTDs
and style sheets, as would a lot of other contributors.  I'm less
familiar with the Debian ecosystem but AFAICT they are shipping
even older docbook packages than Red Hat.

In short, making this conversion now would destroy most contributors'
ability to build the docs at all.  Not to mention packagers, who
generally don't have the option to use stuff not yet blessed by their
distro.  Since we've lately been encouraging packagers to build the
docs for themselves, that part is likely to be a pain point long
after it stops being one for average contributors.

I don't see how we can migrate to 5.2 until it becomes a lot more
widespread in standard distros.

regards, tom lane


For me it's understandable that Red Hat and others hesitate to integrate
DocBook into their distros. The DocBook people spread their results
across a lot of sites: docbook, oasis, sourceforge, github, cdn, ...
(DTD, XML-schema, Relax-NG; xslt1.0, xslt2.0, xslt3.0; with/without
namespace; ...) and even mix it with secondary literature in a less
transparent way. It's hard to understand which parts are the necessary
core of their product.

For the PG community I would like to raise the question: Do we need
DocBook in the distro of any operating system? In the past we developed
some stylesheets to adopt DocBook to our needs. They are part of PG's
distro and refer to the standard with statements like http://docbook.sourceforge.net/release/xsl/current//docbook.xsl"/>.
With the migration to db5.x the links change to http://cdn.docbook.org/release/xsl/1.79.2//docbook.xsl"/>.
Hence we don't need any additional local stylesheet outside of our own
distro. Concerning DTD/schema/relax-ng: In db5.2 there is no DTD nor a
XML-schema, for validation we need only the Relax-NG file 'docbook.rng'.
This file is available at
https://docs.oasis-open.org/docbook/docbook/v5.2/os/rng/docbook.rng
(during the conversion-process I used a local copy).

I assume we don't need any operating system distro of DocBook. Please
correct me, if I'm wrong.

---
J. Purtz


Re: Documentation improvement patch

2024-09-06 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 5 Sep 2024, at 11:33, Oleg Sibiryakov  wrote:
> 
> Dear all,
> I have prepared a patch containing some minor inconsistencies in the 
> documentation. Please, take a look.
> The inconsistencies were noticed by: Ekaterina Kiryanova, Elena Indrupskaya, 
> Maxim Yablokov, Anna Uraskova, Elena Karavaeva, and me. 
> We will be looking forward to your feedback.
> The patch shall be applied to the REL_17_STABLE branch.

Most of these seem fine, but I need another read-through to digest them fully.
Just a few small comments:

-Specifies the builtin provider locale for the database default
-collation order and character classification, overriding the setting
-.  The builtin provider locale for the 
database
+default collation order and character classification, overriding the
+setting .  The .
+Specifies the locale name when the builtin provider
+is used. Locale support is described in .


I don't think this use of "builtin" refers to the config value but rather the
type of locale, so I think it's correct to not use  here.


-for not-null constraints at all, so they are not
+for NOT NULL constraints at all, so they are not

This seems mostly to be a question of taste, I don't think not-null is
incorrect here.

--
Daniel Gustafsson