[postgis-devel] Do you think we should put a note about 2D and3D on each function?

[Kevin Neufeld]

I agree.  Having our own extra xsl would cleanup the sqlmm and ogc 
compliant tagging.  Give 'er a try.

How would this work with the different conversions we do (html, chunked 
html, and pdf all use different docbook stylesheets)?  Would we have to 
create three different xsl wrappers for html/docbook.xsl, 
html/chunk.xsl, and fo/docbook.xsl?
-- Kevin


Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Obe, Regina wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to define a new tag or something for this.  I was
>> thinking if we had a separate tag for it, it would be easier to pull out
>> those functions that have that tag later.
>>
>> I guess we have similar issues with MM.  Anyrate we can still do it if
>> we stick to the same terminology, but I figured it would be less prone
>> to error if we had a tag.
>>
>> I am feeling a bit more confident about my XSLT abilities now that I
>> have a couple of unrelated projects that involved me having to write xsl
>> files to transform the data into another format.  I was hoping to tackle
>> generating the function alter comments statements in the next week or so
>> trying to stick with just using a custom .xsl file for minimum increase
>> in dependencies.
>>
>> Which brings me to the topic of if we create a custom xsl file for this,
>> where should we put this in the source tree or is this direction
>> completely wrong?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Regina
> 
> I'd say post a proof-of-concept to the list. As long as the paths within 
> the docbook source are all relative, I see no reason why we can't 
> include an extra .xsl file if required.
> 
> 
> ATB,
> 
> Mark.
>