From: Paul Moore (gustav_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-03-11 18:49:11
On 11 Mar 2001, at 16:20, David Abrahams wrote:
> From: "Jeremy Siek" <jsiek_at_[hidden]>
> > I'm definitely in favor of going in the XML direction with boost
> > documentation. My group at ND has been looking at using XML to create
> > "concept" descriptions, which are the basis of many forms of output: html
> > docs, latex docs, C++ concept checking classes.
> Do we really need to invent our own DTDs for boost? It seems to me that
> there ought to be appropriate DTDs for documenting C++ libraries
> somewhere... if we /do/ need to invent them here, at least we ought to try
> to get them standardized.
Er... As the person who (innocently!) started this, can I just say that I,
personally, wasn't suggesting XML. Nor am I sure it's the right option. I
actually quite like the current state of Boost documentation. All I would
suggest is that some thought be put into making a "printer-friendly"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk