Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration

Subject: Re: [Boost-docs] Sphinx integration
From: Mateusz Loskot (mateusz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-10-07 09:26:31

Somehow, I took it as docutils/rST, so understood correctly.
Mat

On 07/10/11 02:54, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> Whoa, re-reading the below, everywhere I wrote "docbook" it should have
> been "docutils," a.k.a. ReStructuredText.  Man, I'm sure that was
> confusing.
>
> on Tue Sep 27 2011, Dave Abrahams<dave-AT-boostpro.com>  wrote:
>
>> The differences run deep.  If it was a totally clear cut win for ReST,
>> I'd have pushed for its exclusive adoption years ago.
>>
>> - quickbook is an extensible programming language; ReST is explicitly
>>    trying *not* to be programmable
>>
>> - quickbook generates boostbook, which can represent rich semantic
>>    information.  ReST can't very cleanly express arbitrary semantic or
>>    visual markup (bold-italic anyone?)
>>
>> - quickbook is maintained by Boosters when they have the time, docbook
>>    is maintained externally
>>
>> - quickbook takes a long time to compile, docbook is Python
>>
>> - quickbook is not really used outside of Boost; docbook is used by
>>    manymanymany
>>
>> - there's no usable Emacs editing mode for quickbook; there is for ReST.
>

-- 
Mateusz Loskot, http://mateusz.loskot.net
Charter Member of OSGeo, http://osgeo.org
Member of ACCU, http://accu.org