From: troy d straszheim (troy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 02:50:16
On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 08:24:42PM +0800, Joel de Guzman wrote:
> No, "get rid" is too strong a term. The real goal is to provide
> alternative back ends (e.g. direct HTML, LaTEX, DocUtils, etc.,
> in addition to DocBook). This can be achieved through a set of
> back end template libraries. And, no, I don't think it is a short
> term goal.
If I understand correctly, pandoc,
works like this. It works well. I did my best to switch to pandoc
but I found markdown to be too limited, especially the lack of code
syntax highlighting. So a pandocish tool in C++, that reads Quickbook
and writes HTML/latex/whatever, and where one can just add back-ends
for new formats/tools... very cool.
> The short term goal is to simplify quickbook a lot
> more than it is now (a targeted 90% reduction in c++ code size)
> by moving to template libraries. We'll end up with a standard
> template library with 90% of the functionality of quickbook
> plus a set of intrinsics in c++ code. *** We're actually
> striving to make quickbook simpler, not more complex ***
> Why? some people, do not like the elaborate tool chain that
> Doc/BoostBook requires. Some parts of the tool chain, e.g. FOP,
> is severely broken, XSLT is so slow and difficult to understand
> and maintain, etc. DocBook is not perfect, you know. It too has
> its own sets of problems.
I'm one of those people. I wrote a lot of docs in quickbook at one
point and lost a couple of days to trying to get FOP to make PDFs.
I'd hacked quickbook a little (which itself was fun and educational),
but it was nearly impossible to tell where the errors were occurring
(xsltproc, the stylesheets, apache-fop... egh.) It was also
frustrating that nothing that came of the process was contributable
back to boost, just a bunch of shell scripts that didn't do anything
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk