Boost logo

Boost :

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


-----Original Message-----
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of William E. Kempf
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:21 PM
To: boost_at_[hidden]
Subject: RE: [boost] Reference documentation: one approach

David Bergman said:
> Alex,
> 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.


\quote{stuff here}
<quote/stuff here/

Identical to me. Neither is more ugly than the other. The more

<quote>stuff here</>

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:

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