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
>> 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
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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk