From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-21 01:10:00
Douglas Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-20 at 19:59 +0400, 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 format.
> The option to eliminate BoostBook entirely, so that one can translate
> directly from Quickbook to Docbook.
> I'm making the assumption that it's better to have something home-grown
> but simple (Quickbook) rather than something loosely standards-based
> (extends DocBook) that is hard to use.
I'm not sure. DocBook is something with lots of information available.
Anyway, I sure don't want to use quickbook for Boost.Build documentation,
so as soon as I'm not forced to, I'm fine. But Boost.Build is probably
pure DocBook -- I don't think any BoostBook extensions are used.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk