Re: Proposal: Abandoning monolithic Boost documentation.

From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-04-23 09:17:00

On 23 Apr 2025 12:04, Дмитрий Архипов via Boost wrote:
> 
>> Right.  In my world the download for each library would contain both the
>> html and the original document source.  Most have no interest in the
>> document source, they just want to read the documentation so the use the
>> library RIGHT NOW (users are very impatient) preferable without having
>> to go to the web.
> 
> Who are those users who have an aversion to going to the web? How do
> they get your project's sources without going to the web? Do they have
> a short window where they have Internet access, like they are on an
> exoplanet? I have relatives that live in a village in taiga. They
> don't have indoor plumbing, but they have good enough Internet access
> to send GIFs daily.

To be fair, offline docs are useful for packaging. And I mean truly
offline, i.e. when the built html contains no references to online
resources that are needed to view them, especially no online tracking
stuff. E.g. on Debian, you can install libboost-doc and have all of the
Boost documentation locally. This can be used in closed environments,
where Internet access is restricted. (I know because I've been in such
environment, although last time it was many years ago.) Some people are
also concerned with privacy.

So yes, offline html docs is a thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean
they should be committed in git. They should simply be available
somewhere to anyone who needs them. A downloadable tarball works fine.