Subject: Re: [boost] Improving Boost Docs
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-14 17:56:11
On 08/14/2017 11:37 AM, John Maddock via Boost wrote:
> If you want a different look and feel, then yes things could be a lot
> better. However, within boost the consistency is a good thing IMO.
> BTW the look and feel is in 2 parts:
> * Different stylesheet, fluorescent dancing C++ keywords etc.... this is
> actually trivial to do.
> * Different Docbook customisation layer (and yes there are some
> formatting options that can only be addressed in XSL, not in XSL
> params). This is the hard one - or at least its the hard one if we're
> using Jamfiles. From the command line it's trivial if you don't mind
> writing a... ahem... makefile ;)
> BTW is there any reason to continue using the Boostbook customisation
> layer? Is anyone actually using it?
Yes. Nobody writes it directly, but there's a
stylesheet that converts doxygen's XML output
> I'm fairly sure quickbook doesn't,
> and it would sure simplify the build process to leave out one level of
> XSL transformation. Sadly we would need an XSL expert to sort that mess
> out I suspect :(
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk