From: Matias Capeletto (matias.capeletto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-24 16:11:30
On 6/24/07, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> on Sat Jun 23 2007, "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental-AT-thomson.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 5. This is new *nonstandard* format any new developer will have to
> > learn. I don't believe we can afford yet another barrier for new
> > submitters.
> Unless they already know DocBook, DocBook represents a much higher
> barrier for most people getting started.
> > 6. Source code highlighting
> > My understanding is that quickbook presents some source code
> > highlighting automation. IMO this can be either implemented as standalone
> > C++ based tool that docs writers can use when required or even better it can
> I'm not sure I want to do that job on the browser, but I understand
> the appeal, especially if end-users can tune the colors.
Have you seen this: (firefox, safari, camino and knoqueror only for now)
Move the mouse to the upper-right corner of a code-block and select
your preferred IDE.
> > II. BoostBook
> > 4. Documentation
> > I found documentation to be largely unacceptable (funny thing for the
> > project dedicated to writing documentation)
> > c) most critical: no description whatsoever of all the modification done
> > in comparison with DocBook. All the updated parameter need to be listed, all
> > the updated templates need to be explained. General approach should be what
> > the person familiar with DocBook (standard) need to know/expect to use
> > BoostBook
> That's a problem.
Almost solved in my local copy, will upload it soon.
> > As I mentioned before we should try to limit our extensions to the most
> > necessary only and strive to stick with standard DocBook. Also all
> > extensions should be made optional.
> Aren't they, currently?
> > III. What should we do?
> > IMO the standardization efforts need to target DocBook/BoostBook. On the
> > other hand each developer should be allowed to extend/twick standard L&F.
> > Usually differences should be only cosmetic.
> Major cosmetic differences will keep Boost looking fractured.
> > Following are general
> > observations about common L&F
> > 1. JS Menu support.
> > I believe it should be implemented but made optional.
> Why not just let the user show/hide it?
I am working to provide this functionality. You have spoiled the
surprise effect now ;)
> > 4. Portability
> > This is major requirement for all the features we implement. They should
> > work on at least set of predefined "major" browsers.
We are currently working on this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk