Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?

Subject: Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?
From: Daniel Pfeifer (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-06 19:47:36

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Vladimir Prus <vladimir_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 12/06/2014 02:41 AM, Robert Ramey wrote:
>
>> Vladimir Prus-3 wrote
>>
>>> As heretic as it sounds, do we get any benefits from BoostBook? It's a
>>> complex vocabulary, with complex toolchain,
>>> and while PDF generation sounded nice 10 years ago, printing HTML into
>>> PDF
>>> is a viable option these days - and nobody
>>> would want to print entire Boost documentation anyway?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>
>> Usage of BoostBook/DocBook isn't required by Boost.  Library writers are
>> free to use any system they want to produce HTML documentation.
>>
>> Maybe the question you might want to ask is ... Should QuickBook be
>> altered
>> to produce html directly?
>>
>
> QuickBook, likewise, is not required. So the question I really want to ask
> is what
> people's opinion about best documentation solution in 2014. It's
> intentionally
> open-ended.

I held back that comment because I avoided to sound heretic, but since you
started the topic:

Today, I would pick Sphinx as a documentation system. While I prefer
Asciidoc over ReStructuredText as markup, Sphinx wins hands down because of
https://readthedocs.org/.

I think the whole documentation of Boost should be hosted by ReadTheDocs.
By doing so, the documentation will be built remotely as HTML, PDF and Epub
for all releases, triggered by a push to git. It looks nice on the desktop,
on paper, and on phones.

Printing is not such an issue any longer. My issue is that the current
Boost documentation is unreadable on handheld devices!