[postgis-devel] Re: [postgis-users] PDF version of manual?

[Kevin Neufeld]

Great.  Thanx Mark.

Curious. <inlinegraphic> is not a DocBook standard?

Ah.  I see it's been deprecated in v5.0.  For some reason I thought we 
were complying with version v4.5.

If that's the case, we would need to change the first line in the 
postgis.xml document appropriately, no?

<!DOCTYPE book PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.3//EN" 
"http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.3/docbookx.dtd"

You mentioned you tried xmlroff to generate the pdf but it didn't fair 
well.  Previously, Paul generated his nice version that closely matches 
the new html stylesheet using XSL-FO and Adobe Fop.  I haven't been able 
to reproduce that yet though.

Cheers,
Kevin

Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Kevin Neufeld wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks like things got a little jumbled with the new 
>> documentation shuffle.
>>
>> I've reinstated the link on the documentation webpage to an older pdf 
>> I found (version 1.3.2).  
>> (http://postgis.refractions.net/docs/postgis.pdf ).  In my spare time, 
>> I'll work to update the postgis autobuild process to update this file 
>> on a regular basis.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kevin
> 
> Okay, I've just committed some fixes to the documentation Makefile and 
> docbook source to enable PDFs to be generated once again. "make 
> postgis.pdf" in the documentation directory should now churn out a nice 
> PDF.
> 
> The most important thing to note is that OpenJade is a lot more strict 
> than xsltproc on its DocBook input source. In particular I had to change 
> the following points:
> 
> 
> - Remove the class attribute from the <inlinegraphic> element (according 
> to the DocBook standard, it doesn't exist anyway)
> 
> - <note> elements cannot contain CDATA (I got around this by wrapping 
> the content in a further set of <para> elements)
> 
> - OpenJade doesn't like empty sections in the documentation; hence I 
> added some <para> elements containing simply an   character
> 
> 
> In response to my previous email, I did try using xmlroff based on the 
> gnome toolset to generate the documentation, but I didn't think the end 
> result was as good as the OpenJade output - if other people wish to 
> experiment, feel free, but my feeling is we should stick with OpenJade 
> for the time being.
> 
> Things to resolve:
>     - Some parts of the documentation appear in red?
>     - Inline graphics don't appear to be included (may be a case of
>     moving the images/ subdirectory?)
> 
> But in the meantime, I hand this back over to the hardworking 
> documentation authors :)
> 
> 
> ATB,
> 
> Mark.
>