Re: [boost] Boost documentation format (was Re: Boost documentation)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-06-25 12:49:51

Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> "Paul A Bristow" <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:002301c7b741$0798cc40$0200a8c0_at_hetp7...
>> I think the weight of opinion is firmly behind keeping Quickbook as a
>> favoured, but not exclusive, Boost docs tool.
>
> Let me clarify again my point:
>
> Boost should require BoostBook as a documentation format. This is the
> format documentation should be kept in source control and delivered
> with release.

I don't disagree with the above; it's OK to have a Boost-wide requirements 
for documentation, and I personally have no opinion on which one it should 
be.

However I should stress that *neither the current form of .xml nor .qbk is 
documentation* as far as I'm concerned. Both are intermediate formats that 
are of no practical use without further processing. I admit that it would be 
possible to make the .xml files viewable in a browser by using a stylesheet, 
but currently they don't seem to be. CVS users of Boost should not be 
considered second-class citizens; they should have access to human-readable 
documentation as well.