Re: [Boost-docs] FW: [Doxygen-announce] Doxygen version 1.7.3 released

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] FW: [Doxygen-announce] Doxygen version 1.7.3 released
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-20 14:41:32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-docs-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-docs-
> bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Daniel James
> Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:39 PM
> To: Discussion of Boost Documentation
> Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] FW: [Doxygen-announce] Doxygen version 1.7.3
> released
> 
> On 20 January 2011 12:18, Paul A. Bristow <pbristow_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> > My stuff looks a bit ugly still.
> >
> > Can I try out your fix from somewhere?
> 
> Um, no, it looks like I overwrote the css on the site when I rebuilt the
> documentation. 

Sympathetic grin ;-)

You've got to add something like this to doc/src/boostbook.css:
> 
> body { font-size: 16px; }

I've tried changing (and 18px too) that in a private copy of boostbook.css

and this improves things  - I like that it makes the code section bigger too
(it was too small for me).

But I think the more important ugliness is the too-big size of the
description like " public construct/copy/destruct" etc bit

for example:

<h3>
<a name="close_toconstruct-copy-destruct"></a><code
class="computeroutput">close_to</code> 
        public  construct/copy/destruct</h3>  << why is this h3 and not
smaller?
 
> That's not sufficient since it will mess up font resizing on IE,

Do we really need to support legacy browsers ;-)

> and there are some
> existing rules which won't interact well with that change. I think I'll
just redo font
> sizing from scratch - it's a bit of a mess in the css.

Sounds good to me - some comments explaining what is going on might help in
future?

While you are at it, I have a violent objection to the syntax colouring - I
*need* comments in green ;-)

So the idea of a single boostbook.css isn't working right for me.

Paul

(And while I'm in moan mode, I find the need to change location if I move
the doc location isn't what relative addressing promises (and absolute
doesn't work)  There seem to be no 'standard' layout and jamfile template so
there is much confusing mucking about to get the links right - and
puzzlement when they are wrong).