Boost logo

Boost :

From: Cédric Venet (cedric.venet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-24 05:04:21

> > And it *is* easy to support.
> It's easy now, when you've got very limited number of users. This will
> change with widespread application of this format. And to be completely
> frank with you how easy it is to support the tools for you is
> comparatively
> minor part of my concern. After all it's your own decision. The fact
> remains: someone need to support it. Someone need to test it. Someone
> need
> to documents it.

The fact is if one day, quick book is broken and not supported anymore, you
just have to use the last correct version to convert your quickbook doc into
docbook and work on the doc book.

> And what about these:
> Do you support quickbook documents validation?
> Do you plan to invent schema language?

You can run the schema validation on the docbook, it should be easy to find
the corresponding part of the quickbook

> Do you run unit tests?
> How flexible is it in comparison with DocBook from extension
> standpoint?

If you don't fin dit extensible enough, go back to boostbook

> Is there a single editor out there that understands this format?

Simple enough to use with lightweight text editor: vim, emacs, kde (someone
developed a syntax colorizer for it)

> > It is very easy to understand, extend and maintain.
> First of all it's subjective opinion: I personally don't like these
> magic
> char sequences and prefer explicit names in everything. And since you
> don't
> have many users yet you can't really state second and third.

For those which don't use xml wisiwig editor, it is useful.
If you don't need it, don't use it.
> Gennadiy

I just emphasised the point of Matias, that you don't need to use it. And if
you start using it, you can easily go back.

Cédric Venet

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at