Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 11:10:48

Although I love Lynx, I do not see this as a major problem. When you are
in the mood for some development, do you not have access to a browser
rendering HTML graphically? I mean, even if you do SSH into that Unix
machine over there, do you not have another machine (hint: like the one
running the SSH client) available?

And, it was a long time ago when HTML was conceived as a semantically
structured language. It is an abstract syntax for page layout. Tags like
"img" and frames are part of HTML. Lynx is not a proper renderer of

What is important, though, is to stay within the HTML 4.2 (or whatever
version decided...) and not rely on extra-HTML tags or on
browser-specific treatment of standard tags. This goal excludes heavy
DHTML usage, for instance.

If the hypothesis is that HTML was designed to be readable on anything,
this experience of yours shows that the goal is at least not satisfied
if Lynx is considered to be a valid instance of "anything"... In other
words, as far as I can see, the Synopsis-generated Boost.Python
documentation comply with HTML 4.2, so this is just a counterexample of
your HTML hypothesis. So, either remove "Lynx" from "anything", or
invalidate the hypothesis.


-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Simons
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 3:43 AM
To: Boost mailing list
Subject: Re: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach

David Abrahams writes:

> The current state of the Synopsis-generated Boost.Python docs are >
now at:

When I look this URL with a non-graphical web browser -- such as Links,
Lynx, or W3M -- I see almost _nothing_; the documentation is more or
less unreadable. Given the fact that HTML was _desigend_ to be readable
on anything, this strikes me as a problem.

Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at