Robert Ramey wrote:
I think it's probably better to somehow make all new libraries use Boost.Book. If that's done, any presentation issues can be solved in one place. For example, I think there were already discussion about expandable TOC on the boost-doc failings list.
I would like to see one package done in boost book before we impose such a requirement. When I go to the NightlyCVS link in the main boost page it shows what looks like boost book generated main page (whose aesthetics I'm not crazy about).
Aesthetics does not matter, really. It was much worse before but when I've made some noise about that on boost-doc mailing list, the look was improved so I consider it reasonable now. You surely will be able to post your complaints too.
When I click on one of the items it's a dead link. This gives me the impression that boost.book is still in development
http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/libraries.ht... shows as much as 11 libraries with real content, see for example: http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/class.boost.... or http://www.boost.org/regression-logs/cs-win32_metacomm/doc/html/program_opti...
and that there are still too many pending issues to impose such a requirement.
I'm sorry, but this sounds kinda like FUD. What specific issues you have in mind? There are some thing I'd personally like to have improved, but Boost.Book is definitely pretty usable now. - Volodya