From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-07-15 10:56:43
Mattias Flodin wrote:
>> (ii) Requiring all documentation to support a no-script option.
>In think (ii) is an absolute requirement. I find myself using
>text-based browsers from time to time, especially when working across
>an SSH connection, and I get quite annoyed by some documentation sites
>to go the same way.
>in browsers such as IE for security reasons, and some companies make
>that a policy decision.
Actually I agree with this. I will change the serialization navigation pain
so that it works on browsers that don't support scripting. This would leave
the navigation pane but it would always be maximally expanded for browsers
that don't support it. I think that would fulfill the requirement of making
the documentation universally useable and still permit us to use the
facility we like most of the time.
A real problem with this collapsible tree navigation is that I generated it
by hand. OK for a one time deal but not a great long term idea.
As I understand it - the boost.book idea is the long term solution. I don't
know if it now has the capability to generate such a navigation pane from
the source documentation - but it should. Also if the formatting were all
in the cascaded style sheet it would go a long way to avoiding disputes
about things like aesthetics. It would be practical as well. For example
one using a text based browser might use a different CSS. Feel free to take
this with a grain of salt because I've barely looked at it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk