I'm with Dave on this. We use html document because it allows formating and is light weight. I can't see doc's for a library having a cascading style sheet associated with them. Maybe on the web site (and I think it would be overkill then) but for anything smaller.
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:abrahams@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:55 AM
> To: boost@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: <q>quotation?</q>
>
>
> I don't believe in writing programs I can't test.
> Similarly for HTML. Am I crazy?
> -Dave
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Allan Finch" <sarum@vger.demon.co.uk>
> To: <boost@egroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2000 10:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: <q>quotation?</q>
>
>
> > Greg Colvin wrote:
> >
> > > Not in my opinion. I think we should stick with HTML 3.2 for now.
> > >
> > > From: David Abrahams <abrahams@mediaone.net>
> > > > Then it's not appropriate to translate "..."
> to <q>...</q>,
> right?
> >
> > I would do both. As it does not replace the " it is so you can
> > set a style for the quote. IE all quotes shall be in itallic and
> > 11 Point Times New Roman etc. This could be useful latter
> > if you wish to add 'style' to your documentation ;-)
> >
> > IE
> >
> > <q>"something smart that someone said" by Anon</q>
> >
> > --
> > / The whole history of this invention has been a struggle
> > /\|/\ against time - Charles Babbage 1837 on the
> Analytical Engine
> > | K | All Hail Discordia - Burn all Orange Books!
> > \___/ david.allan@finch.org - http://www.ironfort.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>