Vladimir Prus-3 wrote
Maybe the question you might want to ask is ... Should QuickBook be altered to produce html directly?
QuickBook, likewise, is not required. So the question I really want to ask is what people's opinion about best documentation solution in 2014. It's intentionally open-ended.
FWIW the serialization library is still raw html. I did it that way before any tools were around and I've never been motivated convert it to something else. I always disliked XML mainly due to its verbosity and I didn't like it's complexity either. In the course of writing up my take on this subject for the incubator I only required that a submitted library have some sort of online browsable documentation in html. http://rrsd.com/blincubator.com/requirements_documentation/ I also spent some time looking at all the alternatives for making documentation and posted my conclusions here: http://rrsd.com/blincubator.com/tools_documentation/ Naturally preferences are going to differ on this and if you would like to advice library authors to use raw html, you could post your own comments on that page. My preferred solution has failed to catch on - oh well. In any case, I think we want to stick the current and historical policy of letting each author handle it his preferred way. We could never agree on how to do this and I don't think it's worth trying to. On the other hand, I'm VERY convinced that we should be making much more of an effort to demand better documentation content for boost libraries. Of course that's a different topic. Robert Ramey -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/Do-we-need-BoostBook-tp4669821p4669826.ht... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.