RE: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 13:38:59

Bill,

I told you that my comment was whimsical ;-)

For some reason, the "<" typograph is harder on the visual flow than
"\".

But, as you said, if we can stick to DocBook SGML and use SGML->XML
transformers, we would be rather close to the "\" tags of LaTeX or "@"
tags of Javadoc.

My critique was mainly of the abundant presence of "<" and ">" in an XML
solution.

/David

-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William E. Kempf
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:21 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach

David Bergman said:
> Alex,
>
> I think one other concern with XML variants, beside the sometimes 
> unnecessary end tag, is the typographical edginess of "<" and ">". 
> This might sound whimsical, but I believe the negative attitude 
> towards XML w.r.t readaility and writability is enforced by "<" 
> sticking out, typographically separating the document into chunks, 
> while the smoother "\" does not have that edgy affect.

Huh?

\quote{stuff here}
   vs
<quote/stuff here/

Identical to me.  Neither is more ugly than the other.  The more
verbose:

<quote>stuff here</>

could be argued to be uglier, but not by enough to matter, IMHO.  But
since both are valid minimizations in the DocBook SGML...

-- 
William E. Kempf
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost