Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
"Paul A Bristow" <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com> wrote in message news:002301c7b741$0798cc40$0200a8c0@hetp7...
I think the weight of opinion is firmly behind keeping Quickbook as a favoured, but not exclusive, Boost docs tool.
Let me clarify again my point:
Boost should require BoostBook as a documentation format. This is the format documentation should be kept in source control and delivered with release.
I don't disagree with the above; it's OK to have a Boost-wide requirements for documentation, and I personally have no opinion on which one it should be. However I should stress that *neither the current form of .xml nor .qbk is documentation* as far as I'm concerned. Both are intermediate formats that are of no practical use without further processing. I admit that it would be possible to make the .xml files viewable in a browser by using a stylesheet, but currently they don't seem to be. CVS users of Boost should not be considered second-class citizens; they should have access to human-readable documentation as well.