Re: [Boost-docs] HTML to PDF translations?

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] HTML to PDF translations?
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-12 10:00:39

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of David Abrahams
> Sent: 11 February 2009 21:57
> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] HTML to PDF translations?

> on Wed Feb 11 2009, Beman Dawes <bdawes-AT-acm.org> wrote:
.
> > Don't forget a WYSIWYG editor:-)

That would be wonderful - if there was one.

I think it is very significant that all the libraries with 'big' docs
(Units, Accumulator, Math) are done with Quickbook, Autodocs embedded
Doxygen, Auto-Indexing, Embedded source code snippets...

The reason is that these tools all 'understand' C++.  None of the 'Son of
Dreamweaver' programs have a clue about C++ and so can't do anything
intelligent.

So I've not seen a C++ aware WYSIWYG documenter - and I can't see it
happening in the foreseeable future - the market is far too small.

All Boosters must be able to afford it - so it must be free.

And we must have a *portable* solution for Boost documentation.  Do any of
the potential packages run on even most of our platforms?

So I'm sorry but I still think we should refocus our efforts on making sure
that everyone can produce (and edit and build)  Quickbook docs with much
less hassle.

I see four needs (and I've nagged a man who knows a lot about these things
;-)

1  Better setup instructions which include many examples.

2  A test to ensure that everything is set up right (and tell you what's
wrong if not).

3  Template documents so that you can start writing your stuff straightaway.

4  Syntax highlighters for more of the infinitely many text editors about.
(I've reduced my error rate with jamfiles (the most unforgiving parser
ever?) by adding coloring - a 15 minute job).

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB
[phone], mobile [phone]
pbristow_at_[hidden]