Обсуждение: Formatting of warning about using ident

The warning about using ident for authorization or access control is using a
<blockquote> with an <attribution> rather than a <warning>, making it look
quite different from the rest of the manual, and less like a warning IMO.

    https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/auth-ident.html

The attached turns it into a <warning> and removes the <attribution> (this was
the sole place used in the docs) to make the docs more consistent for
formatting of warnings.

cheers ./daniel

On 2019-06-14 10:47, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> The warning about using ident for authorization or access control is using a
> <blockquote> with an <attribution> rather than a <warning>, making it look
> quite different from the rest of the manual, and less like a warning IMO.

But this is a quote from the RFC.  If you want to change it to a warning
box, then you also need to rephrase the surrounding text.  But I don't
really see the need.  It seems fine as it is.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

> On 26 Jun 2019, at 15:09, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-06-14 10:47, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> The warning about using ident for authorization or access control is using a
>> <blockquote> with an <attribution> rather than a <warning>, making it look
>> quite different from the rest of the manual, and less like a warning IMO.
>
> But this is a quote from the RFC.  If you want to change it to a warning
> box, then you also need to rephrase the surrounding text.  But I don't
> really see the need.  It seems fine as it is.

It is indeed a quote, but to my reading/understanding the only reason we’ve
included it is to act as a warning?  Thats why the formatting stood out as it’s
not consistent for warnings.  The attached v2 instead wraps the quote in a
<warning> with a slight rewording to make it even more prominent.

cheers ./daniel

On 2019-07-01 13:48, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2019, at 15:09, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019-06-14 10:47, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> The warning about using ident for authorization or access control is using a
>>> <blockquote> with an <attribution> rather than a <warning>, making it look
>>> quite different from the rest of the manual, and less like a warning IMO.
>>
>> But this is a quote from the RFC.  If you want to change it to a warning
>> box, then you also need to rephrase the surrounding text.  But I don't
>> really see the need.  It seems fine as it is.
> 
> It is indeed a quote, but to my reading/understanding the only reason we’ve
> included it is to act as a warning?  Thats why the formatting stood out as it’s
> not consistent for warnings.  The attached v2 instead wraps the quote in a
> <warning> with a slight rewording to make it even more prominent.

Being a quote and being a warning are two orthogonal properties.  So in
that sense, wrapping the quote in a warning element is more correct.
But the problem is now that a warning box is meant to be formatted out
of line, so writing something like

    <para>This feature does this and that and the other, but
     <warning>
      You can really make a mess with this.
     </warning>
    </para>

is not correct.  (I'm surprised the schema even allows this.)  If you
want to do this, you need to rewrite the surrounding text to be
independent of the warning and rewrite the warning to be outside of the
para and independent of it.  I don't think that would be an improvement
though.

In general, I would argue in favor of fewer "note", "warning", etc.
Some documentation pages are now just a sequence of "note"s and little
proper text.  If the normal text properly explains a topic and its pros
and cons, then we don't need all that extra decoration and it makes the
text easier to read.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> In general, I would argue in favor of fewer "note", "warning", etc.
> Some documentation pages are now just a sequence of "note"s and little
> proper text.  If the normal text properly explains a topic and its pros
> and cons, then we don't need all that extra decoration and it makes the
> text easier to read.

+1.  With the way these things are rendered in the current HTML output,
they are so visually distracting that they ought to be reserved for
absolutely critical info.  I almost feel that we should ban <note>
entirely, because the rendering is completely disproportional to the
meaning.

(Or, maybe, somebody could tinker with the stylesheets?)

            regards, tom lane

On 7/22/19 10:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> In general, I would argue in favor of fewer "note", "warning", etc.
>> Some documentation pages are now just a sequence of "note"s and little
>> proper text.  If the normal text properly explains a topic and its pros
>> and cons, then we don't need all that extra decoration and it makes the
>> text easier to read.
>
> +1.  With the way these things are rendered in the current HTML output,
> they are so visually distracting that they ought to be reserved for
> absolutely critical info.  I almost feel that we should ban <note>
> entirely, because the rendering is completely disproportional to the
> meaning.

Based on the example of auth-ident.html, removing "note" seems to make
sense. It just seems like it's a part of the regular documentation.

However, perhaps the reason people feel the need to highlight such
things is that they want to ensure the reader catches an important
point, particularly as one is often reading the documentation quickly to
find the piece of info they're looking for (speaking from personal
experience).

That said, looking through some other pages, the "notes" feel like
they're other "asides" to add more detail around a particular point, or
calling out a specific fact. It seems like they could be inlined as part
of the regular documentation.

Something like a "warning" should be visually distracting...it's a
warning that the user could end up in a dangerous situation with their
data, so they should heed it.

> (Or, maybe, somebody could tinker with the stylesheets?)

I think lessening the use of "note" would help. It would require some
rewriting in places it's being used. That way, if we need something
that's truly a "warning" we won't feel as hesitant to add it to the docs.

Thanks,

Jonathan

> On 22 Jul 2019, at 14:23, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

> Being a quote and being a warning are two orthogonal properties.  So in
> that sense, wrapping the quote in a warning element is more correct.
> But the problem is now that a warning box is meant to be formatted out
> of line, so writing something like
>
>    <para>This feature does this and that and the other, but
>     <warning>
>      You can really make a mess with this.
>     </warning>
>    </para>
>
> is not correct.  (I'm surprised the schema even allows this.)

According to the schema it’s legal, warning can be in a para and can itself
contain a para.

> I don't think that would be an improvement though.

I’m not a fan of the status quo, but I don’t feel it’s worth pursuing much
further so I’m withdrawing for now.  Thanks for reviewing!

cheers ./daniel