From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-29 22:55:15
> 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'.
> There are a few more good arguments in favour of DocBook:
> - Many, many tools exist that process the DocBook format. You can
> create quality(!) output in RTF (means: MS Word), TeX (means:
> superb printed documentation), HTML, roff (Unix man page), and so
> on and so forth.
That makes any format which can produce DocBook a candidate. I really
want our documentation format to be easy to write, edit, and read
/before/ it passes through a tool for proccessing. Both ReST and
Synopsis can produce DocBook and are therefore very high on my list
for a full solution.
-- 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