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

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] HTML to PDF translations?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-13 15:14:17

on Thu Feb 12 2009, "John Maddock" <> wrote:

>>>> I think we need to make it easier to get the toolchain working (figuring out
>>>> why it doesn't is the major hassle), and provide a template and testing pack
>>>> to get new documenters started.
>>> Don't forget a WYSIWYG editor:-)
> I think a WYSIWYG editor is rather missing the point - DocBook is not based around how
> things *look*, but around how they are *structured*. It's an important conceptual
> difference IMO.

I happen to agree that it's missing the point, but you can't argue with
user preferences like that one. The more you and I say that WYSIWYG
isn't appropriate here, the more people who are attached to it will dig
in their heels. At least, that's my experience.

>> I'd be happy with an emacs editing mode. Getting colorization and other
>> dynamic feedback about the status of your markup is extremely valuable,
>> even if it isn't strictly WYSIWYG. For example, when I'm editing
>> ReStructuredText in emacs, it still shows me the markup I'm entering,
>> but the text responds as I enter it. Italicized sections italicize,
>> headings highlight, etc. That's enough to make editing a lot faster.
> Nod, have you seen
>, I haven't
> personally tried any of these, but they look to do most of what you
> want.

No, I haven't. I'm an emacs junkie. I once built a qbk-mode based on
rst-mode, but it was not very good.

> Personally I find emacs utterly incomprehensible so I'm not going to
> offer to write you a syntax highlighter, but if any emacs experts
> would like to chip here, I'd be more than happy to assist with the
> quickbook side of things...

Well, I'm trying (without total success) to be an emacs expert. Modes
are one of the hardest areas for me to understand, so, maybe someday.

Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 2017-11-11 08:50:40 UTC