Subject: Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?
From: Vladimir Prus (vladimir_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-08 05:05:35
On 12/08/2014 12:04 PM, John Maddock wrote:
>>> We're responsible for that too - it's part of our customisation layer
>>> - if it's old fashioned, it's because it was written a long time ago
>>> and no one has touched it since!
>> Are you sure? It appears to be admon.xsl:graphical.admonition template
>> in base Docbook XSLT layer, with BoostBook doing minor tweaks only.
>> Anyway, I could switch to non-graphical admonitions to get HTML
>> structure I could style, also live at above URL.
> OK, my mistake, yes admonishments get transformed into tables, if this is a problem I suggest you raise it with the Docbook guys - they've
> been quite helpful to us in the past as I recall.
I'm fine with non-graphical admonishments (which are divs).
>>> Personally I like the PDF's *of individual libraries* not the whole
>>> thing - they're easier to search and often to navigate than the HTML.
>>> BTW printing HTML looses a lot of the structural information that
>>> docbook contains, for example you don't get the document outline in the
>>> left pane.
>> Fair enough. On the other hand, HTML produced by BoostBook/DocBook is
>> not quite perfect either and aging, and nobody's working on improving it.
> Are you sure? It's always seemed to me that docbook (and associated stylesheets) is rather well maintained, albeit they're under-resourced
> (like everyone!)
It's subjective, so no, I'm not sure. But the fact that it uses tables everywhere, is not mobile-friendly, and does not
have modern navigation, speaks so.
-- Vladimir Prus CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded http://vladimirprus.com