Boost logo

Boost-Build :

From: Zbynek Winkler (zwin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-02 11:53:05

Christopher Currie wrote:

>>>The second question is what documentation format should be use.
>>>Zbynek has used PHP to automatically generate header and navigation
>>>links, and I'd like to discuss if we're going to use that format,
>>>or current html, or something else.
> The only drawback is that it makes it harder to distribute the docs as
> pure html; users wouldn't be able to download the docs unless we put
> them through a php pre-processor first.

I've thought of that and made a script that saves the generated html for
offline distribution.

>>I too find it a bit of an overkill to use PHP just to create the headers...
>>I'm not familiar with docbook, so I'll refrain from commenting.
> I tend to agree here. My personal vote is for DocBook, which I like a
> lot, and a fair amount of work has been done with BoostBook to create a
> unified look to Boost documentation, and to provide extensions that make
> sense in the context of Boost. Admittedly, the generated HTML doesn't
> look as nearly as pretty as what Zbynek has done. Fortunately, I think
> that can be fixed simply by creating a new XML stylesheet.
> If desired, I can devote a little time over the next few days to convert
> the docs to BoostBook, using the improved structure that Zbynek has created.

I think it is just an issue of a learing curve. I know php so it is ease for
me to use so I used it. I've tried DocBook before and it appeared clumsy to me
(to difficult to do simple things). Dave mentioned RestructuredText - if I
were to choose a whole new format for the documentation (=a lot of rewrite)
then I would go for something like that because it is easy to edit. This php
thing was motivated by doing as little work as possible to get the desired effect.


Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

Boost-Build list run by bdawes at, david.abrahams at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at