From: David Bergman (davidb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-31 13:38:59
I told you that my comment was whimsical ;-)
For some reason, the "<" typograph is harder on the visual flow than
But, as you said, if we can stick to DocBook SGML and use SGML->XML
transformers, we would be rather close to the "\" tags of LaTeX or "@"
tags of Javadoc.
My critique was mainly of the abundant presence of "<" and ">" in an XML
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William E. Kempf
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:21 PM
Subject: RE: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach
David Bergman said:
> I think one other concern with XML variants, beside the sometimes
> unnecessary end tag, is the typographical edginess of "<" and ">".
> This might sound whimsical, but I believe the negative attitude
> towards XML w.r.t readaility and writability is enforced by "<"
> sticking out, typographically separating the document into chunks,
> while the smoother "\" does not have that edgy affect.
Identical to me. Neither is more ugly than the other. The more
could be argued to be uglier, but not by enough to matter, IMHO. But
since both are valid minimizations in the DocBook SGML...
-- William E. Kempf _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk