Обсуждение: pgsql and asciidoc output
Someone suggested that 'asciidoc' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and troff. Would this be useful? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On 02/11/2014 11:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Someone suggested that 'asciidoc' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format > for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and > troff. > > Would this be useful? > Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have to choose one out of many. I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown -- Vik
On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > Someone suggested that 'asciidoc' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format > for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and > troff. > > Would this be useful? Less so than Markdown[1], IMO. (Or CSV or xlsx, come to that.) There’s a long list of potentially useful output formats. How pluggable is the output formatter? Cheers, Steve [1] Markdown tables aren’t quite as built-in as asciidocs, but I suspect a lot more people use markdown.
2014-02-12 0:25 GMT+01:00 Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>:
On 02/11/2014 11:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have
> Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> troff.
>
> Would this be useful?
>
to choose one out of many.
I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown
Markdown is really well know now, and can be useful - but there is small differences between implementations - wikipedia, github, jira
but implementation can be really nice
Pavel
--
Vik
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
I second Bruce. I massively use asciidoc. I guess adding both asciidoc and md would not be too hard.
Thanks,
Gabriele
--
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
Gabriele Bartolini - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gabriele.bartolini@2ndQuadrant.it | www.2ndQuadrant.it
2014-02-12 6:02 GMT+01:00 Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>:
2014-02-12 0:25 GMT+01:00 Vik Fearing <vik.fearing@dalibo.com>:On 02/11/2014 11:56 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have
> Someone suggested that 'asciidoc'
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format
> for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and
> troff.
>
> Would this be useful?
>
to choose one out of many.
I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MarkdownMarkdown is really well know now, and can be useful - but there is small differences between implementations - wikipedia, github, jirabut implementation can be really nicePavel
--
Vik
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
> From: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> > To: PostgreSQL-general <pgsql-general@postgreSQL.org> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2014, 22:56 > Subject: [GENERAL] pgsql and asciidoc output > > Someone suggested that 'asciidoc' > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format > for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and > troff. > > Would this be useful? > Not sure about the arguments for and against either, but I'm rather fond of markdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown) > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com > > + Everyone has their own god. +
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:32:32PM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote: > > > Someone suggested that 'asciidoc' > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AsciiDoc) would be a good output format > > for psql, similar to the existing output formats of html, latex, and > > troff. > > > > Would this be useful? > > Less so than Markdown[1], IMO. (Or CSV or xlsx, come to that.) > > There’s a long list of potentially useful output formats. How pluggable > is the output formatter? It isn't hard to add new formats --- you are passed a table structure and you printf the output. Here is the HTML format output function: http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/bin/psql/print.c;h=79fc43eeda3330873acbea4ad1c555e051e81d00;hb=HEAD#l1394 I did the latex-longtable format for PG 9.3. The difficulty was understanding the latex-longtable format specification, not writing the C code. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 06:02:29AM +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > Perhaps, but if we're going to add a text markup format then we'll have > to choose one out of many. > > I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markdown > > > Markdown is really well know now, and can be useful - but there is small > differences between implementations - wikipedia, github, jira > but implementation can be really nice OK, great. Would the markdown implementation differences affect the psql table output, or are the differences in things we don't need to worry about? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 08:48:49AM +0100, Gabriele Bartolini wrote: > I second Bruce. I massively use asciidoc. I guess adding both asciidoc and md > would not be too hard. Agreed. Assuming there are no objections, I will add it to the TODO list. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. +
On 2/11/14, 6:25 PM, Vik Fearing wrote: > I personally find Markdown to be more pleasing to the eye than AsciiDoc. Markdown can embed HTML tables, so there is nothing that we need to implement.