{"thread":{"id":"34189","subject":"Aw: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles","startedAt":"2013-06-18T07:59:51Z","lastAt":"2013-06-18T16:19:46Z","messageCount":2,"participants":["Thomas Ackermann","Jonathan Nieder"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"221160","messageId":"146574770.2154401.1371542391078.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net","threadId":"34189","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Aw: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles","fromName":"Thomas Ackermann","fromEmail":"th.acker@arcor.de","sentAt":"2013-06-18T07:59:51Z","receivedAt":"2013-06-18T07:59:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"th.acker@arcor.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1358536?v=4"},"body":"> \n> I don't understand.  Do you mean that you want to change the rules\n> that generate user-manual.xml?  Would generating different XML files\n> for the PDF and for other purposes (with different names) work as a\n> way to achieve that without losing the printable manual?\n> \n\nThis would be even worse when we have to create different xml depending on the\nwanted output. The problem here is in the xml->pdf/html step: I wanted to change\nthe formatting of links in the pdf from \"Section <number>\" to \"<section_name>\" to\nmake it the same as in the html. Thereby I noticed that the definition for this is\nin files from /etc/asciidoc/dblatex. So to change it we have to introduce our own files\nin ./Documentation and work on them to bring the formatting of user-manual.html\nand user-manual.pdf closer together.\n\n\n---\nThomas\n"},{"id":"221250","messageId":"20130618161946.GA2887@elie.Belkin","threadId":"34189","inReplyTo":"146574770.2154401.1371542391078.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail18.arcor-online.net","subject":"Re: Re: [PATCH] Remove pdf target from Makefiles","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2013-06-18T16:19:46Z","receivedAt":"2013-06-18T16:19:46Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Thomas Ackermann wrote:\n\n>>                                 Would generating different XML files\n>> for the PDF and for other purposes (with different names) work as a\n>> way to achieve that without losing the printable manual?\n>\n> This would be even worse when we have to create different xml depending on the\n> wanted output. The problem here is in the xml->pdf/html step: I wanted to change\n> the formatting of links in the pdf from \"Section <number>\" to \"<section_name>\" to\n> make it the same as in the html. Thereby I noticed that the definition for this is\n> in files from /etc/asciidoc/dblatex. So to change it we have to introduce our own files\n> in ./Documentation and work on them to bring the formatting of user-manual.html\n> and user-manual.pdf closer together.\n\nNow I'm even more confused. ;-)\n\nIf I understood the original commit message correctly, you were saying\nthe XML file was not suitable for html generation and you wanted to\ntweak it, and were dropping the PDF target to avoid breaking it.  Now\nif I understand correctly you are saying the XML file actually *is*\nsuitable for html generation, and that the html generation rules just\nneed tweaking.  In that case, why remove the PDF target?\n\nPuzzled,\nJonathan\n"}]}