On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 10:30 PM Peter Eisentraut
<peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 19.01.23 00:45, Peter Smith wrote:
> > The original $SUBJECT requirements evolved to also try to make each
> > view appear on a separate page after that was suggested by DavidJ [2].
> > I was unable to achieve per-page views "without radically changing the
> > document structure." [3], but DavidJ found a way [4] to do it using
> > refentry. I then wrote the patch v8-0003 using that strategy, which
> > after more rebasing became the v10-0001 you see today.
> >
> > I did prefer the view-per-page results (although I also only use HTML
> > docs). But my worry is that there seem still to be a few unknowns
> > about how this might affect other (not the HTML) renderings of the
> > docs. If you think that risk is too great, or if you feel this patch
> > will cause unwarranted link/bookmark grief, then I am happy to just
> > drop it.
>
> I'm wary of making semantic markup changes to achieve an ad-hoc
> presentation effects. Sometimes it's necessary, but it should be
> considered carefully and globally.
>
> We could change the chunking boundary to be sect2 globally. This is
> easily configurable (chunk.section.depth).
>
> Thinking about it now, maybe this is what we need. As the documentation
> grows, as it clearly does, the depth of the structure increases and
> pages get longer. This can also be seen in other chapters.
>
> Of course, this would need to be tested and checked in more detail.
>
This chunk configuration idea sounds a better approach. If somebody
else wants to champion that change separately then I can maybe help to
review it.
Meanwhile, this pagination topic has strayed far away from the
original $SUBJECT, so I guess since there is nothing else pending this
thread's CF entry [1] can just be marked as "Committed" now?
------
[1] https://commitfest.postgresql.org/41/3904/
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia