Subject: Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?
From: Pete bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-08 09:54:26
> On 8 Dec 2014, at 10:34, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Vladimir Prus
>> Sent: 08 December 2014 10:06
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Do we need BoostBook?
>> On 12/08/2014 12:04 PM, John Maddock wrote:
>>>>> We're responsible for that too - it's part of our customisation
>>>>> - 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
>>>> 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
>> 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.
> It's possible, but I'm not sure that anyone would *want* to do more than look up
> the odd factette on a mobile. But it's certainly possible and if we can make is
> better, we should do it.
> Would anyone want Boost docs on a tablet as bedtime reading? (except in case of
> serious insomnia ;-)
> So I don't think that being tablet friendly is *terribly* important -
> hyperlinking, search and indexing and completeness are much more important
> design objectives and we are not doing too badly on these.
As you write from a Lakeland farm, I suspect we have quite different commutes... I read the mailing list on a phone on a train and it is common to end up on a Boost doc page from the ML. If improvements are being made I would very much welcome enhanced support for tiny devices.