Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..

Subject: Re: [boost] ATTENTION: Library requirements..
From: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-07 09:23:59

On January 7, 2016 7:40:44 AM EST, "Agustín K-ballo Bergé" <kaballo86_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 1/7/2016 7:53 AM, Louis Dionne wrote:
> > Robert Ramey <ramey <at> rrsd.com> writes:
> >
> >> f) javescript.
> >>
> >> I thing the admonitions agains java script should be softened. 
> Most of
> >> the concerns existent when the document was originally written
> don't
> >> apply to day.  I would like to see our html documentation support
> thinks
> >> like syntax coloring, running example code online, and the like. 
> These
> >> things are often supported via injected javascript.
> >>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > I think JavaScript should be allowed, and even encouraged when it
> makes the
> > documentation much superior. For example, Hana uses JavaScript to
> integrate
> > performance benchmarks to the documentation in a nice way.
> 
> I'm one of those that used to disable javascript by default.

I run NoScript, but I don't mind having to enable JavaScript to view Boost docs. I'd whitelist boost.org if it became common.

> I wouldn't 
> mind its use when it results in a superior documentation, as long as 
> it's optional and I can still get at least a mediocre documentation
> with 
> the basic information, and possibly some hint that I need to enable 
> javascript for this site to see more (not just to navigate
> differently).

Agreed

> What's your take on the remaining ones?
> 
> - Makes printing docs pages difficult.

That's probably not common, but the same is probably true for generating PDF docs, too.

> - Often results in really bad user interface design.

That's like saying C++ often results in bad code. All tools, including HTML and CSS, can produce bad results.

> - "It's just annoying in general."

The only thing annoying about JavaScript is its use in tracking me and trying to exploit my browser.

> - Would require Boost to test web pages for ECMAScript/JavaScript 
> compliance.

I suppose that's necessary to ensure we don't release problematic docs.

> - Makes docs maintenance by other than the original developer more 
> difficult.

I'm not sure that has much merit.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)