[boost] Re: DocBook/XML Reference Documentation updates

From: James Curran/MVP (jamescurran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-15 09:51:37

    These are generated from XML, correct?  If so, could you include a link
to the source XML?

    Also, on the HTML, all the graphic seem to point to broken links.

--
Truth,
James Curran
www.NovelTheory.com  (Personal)
www.NJTheater.com   (Professional)
www.aurora-inc.com   (Day job)
"Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:200211150156.38481.gregod_at_cs.rpi.edu...
> Hello all,
>   I've improved the DocBook-based reference documentation a bit more.
Changes
> & new features:
>   - Ability to use the Docbookesque <classname>foo</classname> to create a
> link to the class named "foo" (as defined in a reference section) within
> text, function signatures, etc.
>   - Better support for syntax highlighting
>   - Better support for man pages
>
> The current HTMLized version of the Boost.Function docs (incomplete, but
> getting closer...) is here:
>   http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~gregod/Boost/function-html/
>
> The man pages (very much improved!) are available here:
>   http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~gregod/Boost/function-man/
>
> Is this the way we want to go with documentation? Should we explore other
> options (e.g., LaTeX) further, or is there any other part of the system we
> need to see working before we can choose? We need a better documentation
> solution for Boost, but if developers think we are going the wrong way and
> won't use it (and don't speak up), then the situation is dire indeed.
>
> Doug
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>