From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 01:54:38
"Cédric Venet" <cedric.venet_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > 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
> the corresponding part of the quickbook
This is not an answer IMO:
1. It's not practical: you can't run quickBook->DocBook->validator after
2. The fact that DocBook is valid means nothing. It might be that converter
produce valid BoostBook from invalid source.
3. If source invalid DocBook generation may not be possible and we left to
dig in into hopefully readable error messages.
4. "should be easy to find" is very subjective and really depends on what
exactly is broken
> > 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
So you confirm my statement in original post, right?
> > > 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.
Right. Let's just not make it a required standard for boost docs.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk