Boost 1.36.0 has been released and is available from SourceForge. See http://sourceforge.net/projects/boost/ This release include four new libraries: * Accumulators: Framework for incremental calculation, and collection of statistical accumulators, from Eric Niebler. * Exception: A library for transporting of arbitrary data in exception objects, and transporting of exceptions between threads, from Emil Dotchevski. * Units: Zero-overhead dimensional analysis and unit/quantity manipulation and conversion, from Matthias Schabel and Steven Watanabe * Unordered: Unordered associative containers, from Daniel James. Updated libraries include Asio, Assign, Function, Hash, Interprocess, Intrusive, Math, MPI, Multi-index Containers, PtrContainer, Spirit, Thread, Wave, and Xpressive. The release managers were Beman Dawes, Rene Rivera, and Daniel James. One note of caution: the initial SourceForge release files were missing some of the documentation. If you downloaded before 16:00 UTC, August 14th, please download again to be sure to get the full distribution. Sorry for the inconvenience! --Beman Dawes PS: The 1.36.0 version of the web site should be up within a few hours. If you can't wait, see http://beta.boost.org now!
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 6:04 PM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
PS: The 1.36.0 version of the web site should be up within a few hours. If you can't wait, see http://beta.boost.org now!
Clicking the XHTML 1.0 link in the documentation (which checks for conformance) seems to report errors on the pages of all of the few libraries I clicked, including the Exception library. Note that the documentation at http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/release/libs/exception/doc/boost-exc... is XHTML 1.0 compliant. Is this a bug in documentation processing? Is there anything library authors can do to fix it? Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
On 15/08/2008, Emil Dotchevski <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
Clicking the XHTML 1.0 link in the documentation (which checks for conformance) seems to report errors on the pages of all of the few libraries I clicked, including the Exception library. Note that the documentation at http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/release/libs/exception/doc/boost-exc... is XHTML 1.0 compliant.
Is this a bug in documentation processing? Is there anything library authors can do to fix it?
It's because the underlying documentation is HTML and we don't really try to convert it or it's invalid XHTML and we don't do anything to fix it. Fixing this is a fairly large job, and far down on the priorities. The simplest thing we could do is run every page through tidy, but that could lead to other problems (because it would change markup). We're actually serving the files as HTML, so the browsers just treat them as tag soup anyway (XHTML is generally not valid HTML, athough that could change with HTML5). This is a very common situation as Internet Explorer doesn't support XHTML. Daniel
Daniel James wrote:
On 15/08/2008, Emil Dotchevski <emil@revergestudios.com> wrote:
Clicking the XHTML 1.0 link in the documentation (which checks for conformance) seems to report errors on the pages of all of the few libraries I clicked, including the Exception library. Note that the documentation at http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/branches/release/libs/exception/doc/boost-exc... is XHTML 1.0 compliant.
Is this a bug in documentation processing? Is there anything library authors can do to fix it?
It's because the underlying documentation is HTML and we don't really try to convert it or it's invalid XHTML and we don't do anything to fix it. Fixing this is a fairly large job, and far down on the priorities.
I'd like to second Daniel on this. Right now we are holding documentation generation together with duct tape. It took much behind the scenes work by Daniel, me, Eric Niebler, Rene, and others to get the release out. We need to smooth all that out before worrying about XHTML. --Beman
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
It's because the underlying documentation is HTML and we don't really try to convert it or it's invalid XHTML and we don't do anything to fix it. Fixing this is a fairly large job, and far down on the priorities.
I'd like to second Daniel on this. Right now we are holding documentation generation together with duct tape. It took much behind the scenes work by Daniel, me, Eric Niebler, Rene, and others to get the release out. We need to smooth all that out before worrying about XHTML.
If we don't care whether the documentation format validates correctly, we should not advertise it as XHTML-conformant, and we should instruct documentation writers to not include any conformance claims in their HTML. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode
on Fri Aug 15 2008, "Emil Dotchevski" <emil-AT-revergestudios.com> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> wrote:
Daniel James wrote:
It's because the underlying documentation is HTML and we don't really try to convert it or it's invalid XHTML and we don't do anything to fix it. Fixing this is a fairly large job, and far down on the priorities.
I'd like to second Daniel on this. Right now we are holding documentation generation together with duct tape. It took much behind the scenes work by Daniel, me, Eric Niebler, Rene, and others to get the release out. We need to smooth all that out before worrying about XHTML.
If we don't care whether the documentation format validates correctly, we should not advertise it as XHTML-conformant, and we should instruct documentation writers to not include any conformance claims in their HTML.
Seems reasonable to me. Would you like to propose a specific patch? -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
participants (4)
-
Beman Dawes -
Daniel James -
David Abrahams -
Emil Dotchevski