From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 10:04:58
Douglas Gregor <gregod_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 08:10 am, William E. Kempf wrote:
> > Can you compare and contrast this to DocBook? I expect your XML is a lot
> > simpler than the DocBook DTD, but since DocBook is an industry standard
> > for this sort of thing it would be nice to know what we'd be giving up for
> > the simplicity.
> I looked at DocBook a bit, but I'm no expert in it. With DocBook alone we
> can't express our reference documentation by the C++ code structure and end
> up with a useful document. However, with just the XML/XSLT as it stands now,
> we're missing the big picture: chapter organization, footnotes, references,
> The answer is probably to use both. The overall document structure comes from
> DocBook, but the nitty-gritty C++ reference details are specified with some
> simple C++ declaration/documentation DTD and transformed into DocBook.
> I'll look into this. We'd also be wise to watch what the Spirit folks are
> doing, because they are also experimenting with DocBook for documentation.
I very much dislike the idea of having the /source/ of our docs be in
any kind of <tag>...</tag> representation. I would like to explore a
more-readable (and typable) alternative: ReStructuredText.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk