"Matias Capeletto" <matias.capeletto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e9b043a10706250930l7842da82je74ba8b7ff9876bc@mail.gmail.com...
On 6/25/07, Gennadiy Rozental <gennadiy.rozental@thomson.com> 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 Boost shouldn't require what tools are used to generate BoostBook documents. Whether it's QuickBook, XML editor, any other facility is irrelevant and libraries authors are free to use any of them (and keep some intermediate files under source control if necessary)
This is one of the objectives of the "Improving Boost Docs" project.
Hmm. I never got this fealing. At least I do not see .dokbook files in libraries maintaining it's docs as quickbook.
From my very first answer to your post:
I hope we can work together to move things in the right direction. IMO your direction is a lot more similar from the current "Improving Boost Docs" project that you think. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really hope that you think that our current direction is right now. Please try not to sparse FUD, people can get confused by it.
What particular part is FUD? I still believe that most (if not all) the point in original post are valid. These facilities were never submitted, reviewed and accepted. Essentially it's a someone toy within bounds of boost (might be quite useful, but the fact remains). BUT, Unless you position it as boost documentation format, I personally don't really care. Gennadiy