Re: [boost] Re: A Formal Review Request

From: David Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-11 12:19:13

From: "Beman Dawes" <beman_at_[hidden]>

> At 11:22 AM 10/11/2000 -0400, David Abrahams wrote:
>
>  >> To me it seems only fitting that a group committed to writing
>  >> standard-conforming C++ would produce standard-conforming HTML.
>  >
>  >I totally agree with the intention. But it certainly seems like it could
> be
>  >a serious additional barrier to entry at boost, an idea which I don't
> like
>  >at all. I hear that most of the automated tools generate garbage, by an
>  >HTML-expert's standards, but I'm not sure I do any better by hand. I
sure
>  >wish someone else would weigh in on this; I don't know enough to speak
> with
>  >authority.
>
> I have a lot of trouble understanding how the boost web site could even
> function without using automated tools.  FrontPage (the site maintenance
> tool I use internally to maintain the web site) does quite a large number
> of things for us automatically that would be impractical by hand.

It seems to me that it could still provide most of those services with
hand-generated HTML content, or the current operators.htm wouldn't have been
acceptable to you.

> And
> because it is a single integrated package, it is very easy to use.  I
> notice from the HTML that comes in from other people that they also often
> use similar tools, rather than just whacking away at HTML by hand.

Are there any reasonably-good free tools for HTML editing? I am still
intimidated by how much I don't know.