Matias Capeletto wrote:
On 6/20/07, Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,
Douglas Gregor wrote:
I would strongly advise that everything go into Quickbook format. It's far easier to write documentation in Quickbook than Boostbook, and Quickbook gives us more options.
What options? Since you've authored Boostbook you must know better, but I still don't see the value in using home-grown documentation format.
Have you tried Quickbook? It is an impressive tool. (I really think that it can be use for others things in the future beside boost). It is a lot easier to maintain, to read, to write, to share.
Some of the options that are included in Quickbook and not in Boostbook are:
* Support for code import. I will be very unhappy with out this feature. In the review of Boost.Bimap we find a lot of typos in docs examples. Every bit of code that appears in y docs now are in libs/bimap/example, and are tested with boost.build before I do any commit. You can not understand the value of this feature til you use it.
Such a support can be added to BoostBook via a tiny script or a tiny C++ program that takes code and produces XML corresponding to it.
* Support for macros
XML entities work just fine.
and templates.
Is it actually that much needed?
* Simple markup for italics, bold, preformatted, blurbs, code samples, tables, URLs, anchors, images, etc.
I guess this is not "option" that quickbook provides, since Docbook allows this too, and "simple" is subjective. - Volodya