RE: [boost] boost test documentation problems

From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 14:28:26

I agree with Beman. Plain HTML should be used for boost docs.

On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
bdawes> At 01:29 PM 8/14/2002, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
bdawes>
bdawes>  >> IMHO, so long as HTML is the Boost standard documentation format, I
bdawes>  >> think we should keep things restricted to vanilla HTML.
bdawes>  >Javascript is a legal part of HTML at least for ~6 years now. And it is
bdawes>  >standart supported everywhere.
bdawes>  >
bdawes>  >> I am all for using tools to generate that HTML where useful and do so
bdawes>  >myself, but I
bdawes>  >> think the distributed docs should be simple.
bdawes>  >I do not use documentation generation tools and javascript is the only
bdawes>  >reasonable way to support different pages in sync.
bdawes>
bdawes> Gennadiy,
bdawes>
bdawes> Any small advantages from using javascript are swamped by the disadvantage
bdawes> that the docs from your library is are different enough from other Boost
bdawes> libraries that it is disconcerting to users.
bdawes>
bdawes> At least on my setup, the Boost.Test docs don't look as nice as the other
bdawes> libraries.  The animation is particularly irritating to my eye.  The grey
bdawes> border detracts, too, IMO.
bdawes>
bdawes> It is fun to try different web page tricks.  But maybe not for the Boost
bdawes> docs.
bdawes>
bdawes> --Beman

----------------------------------------------------------------------
 Jeremy Siek                          http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/
 Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton   email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
 C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org)   office phone: [phone]
----------------------------------------------------------------------