"Vladimir Prus" <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote in message news:200407151037.40144.ghost@cs.msu.su...
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
I think Robert's menu is very effective, and was hoping it represented a de facto relaxation of the no-script policy.
I have some reservation
1. It does not work very nice when image loading is turned off (as it is for me).
Good point -- I hadn't thought of that. It's possible -- using tiny HTML tables -- to generate the icons without using any image files :-P ... but I'd like to know how many people turn image loading off.
2. It takes qutie a lot of screen space.
I guess this is a matter of taste. Some existing libraries have a navigation panel on the left (maybe PP is the only one), so this issue isn't really related to scripting.
I think script problems can be resolved by
(i) Having a (small) boost-wide library of javascipt components
which
have been tested on a large number of browsers and which all library authors would have to use. To begin with, it could just contain a tree control like Robert's; maybe that would be enough.
I think it's probably better to somehow make all new libraries use Boost.Book. If that's done, any presentation issues can be solved in one place. For example, I think there were already discussion about expandable TOC on the boost-doc failings list.
This may be a good solution. But I think there would still be a need for a javascript component for use by Boost.Book. From my point of view -- if I'm writing the script -- it makes no difference whether it's to be used by individual library authors or by Boost.Book.
At all events, I'd prefer constistent look of all Boost library docs (and the ability to print them), to every author introducing something they like.
I agree completely.
- Volodya
Jonathan