From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-20 13:24:11
Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> I would strongly advise that everything go into Quickbook format.
>> It's far easier to write documentation in Quickbook than Boostbook,
>> and Quickbook gives us more options.
> What options? Since you've authored Boostbook you must know better,
> but I still don't see the value in using home-grown documentation
Automatic syntax highlightling of source code for one.
Quickbook is also much easier to read, write and maintain than Docbook.
To give you an example, when I originally did the TR1 docs, I invested quite
a bit of time to learn Docbook, and authored the docs using that. About a
month later quickbook came along, and my first reaction was much like yours:
I certainly didn't want to have to learn "yet another format". However, I
gave it a try, and liked it so much that I immediately rewrote the TR1 docs
in quickbook format: the quickbook source is just so much easier to read and
maintain than Docbook XML, which frankly I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy
Anyway that's my experience.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk