From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 16:22:31
Kevin S. Van Horn said:
> As I see it, the advantages of DocBook are
> 1. Well-established standard tool (same advantage applies to LaTex, but
> not to home-grown XML or the ReStructuredText Dave mentioned).
> 2. Readily-available tools to convert to both HTML (for Web
> and Tex/postscript/PDF (for printed documentation).
> - Whether or not it is easy to do this conversion on platforms other
> than Unix isn't a big deal, as it only has to be done once for each
> release, and then the converted forms can be distributed as part of
> the Boost package.
I have to disagree with this point. As a developer, I have to know that
the documentation I write is accurate and presented in a "proper" form.
If I can't generate the final output I can only be sure of half of that.
> - The lack of a reasonable printed form for Boost documentation has
> always been an irritating problem.
This part I totally agree with, and it's one of the compelling reasons for
finding another solution.
> 3. The focus is on structure, not presentation. This makes it much more
> suitable for automatic processing to extracting indices and other
> information from the documentation. For example, one could
> automatically generate the Concepts Dictionary that I've mentioned in
> the past.
> I think that (2) and (3) are especially important.
I think (again, I'm no expert on either) that LaTeX can do 2 as well.
It's 3 where DocBook appears to have an advantage.
-- William E. Kempf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk