RE: [boost] boost test documentation problems

From: parksie ;-\) (parksie_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 12:37:16

Does DocBook have any vague place in this? AFAIK it can make all these
formats.

Mike (resident lurker)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Bergman
> Sent: 14 August 2002 18:15
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: RE: [boost] boost test documentation problems
> 
> 
> Why not TeX with no LaTeX whatsoever? It would be great to 
> see all those mbox:es again ;-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] 
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On > Behalf Of Ronald 
> Garcia
> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 12:51 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] boost test documentation problems
> 
> Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
> 
> >>Why no plain HTML?
> >>    
> >>
> >Why not plain text then?
> >
> For most boost libraries, the web pages are the only documentation 
> available.  I tend to use non-browser tools to generate quality 
> (somewhat :) ) printouts and postscript/pdf files of the 
> documentation.
> 
> Javascript hinders my ability to do so.
> 
> IMHO, so long as HTML is the Boost standard documentation format, I 
> think we should keep things restricted to vanilla HTML.  I am all for 
> using tools to generate that HTML where useful and do so 
> myself, but I 
> think the distributed docs should be simple.
> 
> ron
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/bo> ost
>