From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-23 08:30:45
Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> I've been offline for a bit. But I was able to spend several weeks learning
> DocBook. I must say I was really impressed with quality of this project. I
> also tried to get a grasp of BoostBook and gave perfunctory look on
> quickbook. Here I would like to share my thoughts on recent "doc update"
> I. quickbook as documentation media.
> Why, oh, why don't we learn from our own mistakes. We just started to
> realize the problem we got ourselves into with makesystem. And immediately
> find new toy to play with. However fun it is, however cool it might look on
> first sight, THIS IS NOT OUR BUSENESS to invent/support documentation
It is my business :-). As much as I like writing libraries, I also like
writing tools. And it *is* easy to support. It is merely a very thin layer
on top of docbook. It is very easy to understand, extend and maintain.
I am not the sole maintainer. It's being maintained by some folks and
I do get some contributions from a few more. IOTW, it's not a one-man-show.
And, it is not a new toy. It's been with us since 2002.
> DocBook is very mature, well supported project. It's based on widely
> accepted/supported technologies. It's powerful and configurable to implement
> essentially anything one need.
quickbook *is* docbook. What's the worry? If you get paranoid, you
can just dump into xml and forget about quickbook. Nothing lost!
> I personally don't see much valid reasons to
> look in home grown format direction.
Well, you can't please everybody ;) The good thing is, you don't need
to use it if you don't want to.
-- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk