Re: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 20:12:54

At 04:16 PM 10/29/2002, William E. Kempf wrote:

 >
 >Douglas Gregor said:
 >> On Tuesday 29 October 2002 10:43 am, Peter Simons wrote:
 >>> Douglas Gregor writes:
 >>> Also, DocBook is extensible; if you find that tags are missing, just
 >>> define them. Or report them to the guys at docbook.org: They are very
 >>> cooperative and certainly value input from their users. This would
 >>> also be beneficial to many more people than just "Boosters'.
 >>
 >> I wouldn't expect the guys at docbook.org to understand what we need 
for
 >> Boost  documentation, so we're probably (mostly) on our own if we want
 >> to extend  DocBook for Boost.
 >
 >Except our needs coincide with the needs of the C++ standards committee
 >and most C++ developers, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they weren't
 >interested in some collaboration if it's actually needed.  Of course, I'm
 >just guessing ;).

Some of the LWG members just had a related conversation with Matt Austern. 
He is the Project Editor (ISO-speak for person in charge) for the Library 
TR. Since as of Friday there are now accepted proposals, he needs to make a 
decision about what tool to use for the TR's documentation base.

The three he mentioned that he is considering are:

   * DocBook
   * Latex
   * Troff (to take advantage of all the troff macros used to produce
            the standard itself.)

I've already let him know that this discussion is happening. It would be a 
great time saver IMO if both the Library TR and Boost were using the same 
tools.

--Beman