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
>> 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:
* 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk