-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marsh Ray Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 5:40 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Francisco_Jos=E9?="@wowbagger.osl.iu.edu Subject: [boost] Proposed documentation convention for pre-accepted libs
On 05/02/2011 10:33 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
On 5/1/2011 4:08 PM, Francisco José Tapia wrote:
or if you want a quick look , you can see in my web page< http://fjtapia.webs.com/works/countertree/index.html>
Please adjust your docs to make it *very* clear this is not an official, or accepted, Boost C++ Library.
I suggest that Boost adopt a convention for the documentation of libraries that are in the formally proposed or trial balloon state.
It seems like a good idea to have an alternate set of identifiers, perhaps an alternate BoostBook stylesheet, macros, etc. that library authors can use when developing libraries that they think they might want to submit. A set of guidelines that would make it easy for an author to put together everything for a well-integrated submission without it looking like he's representing his library as an official Boost project.
There was a long thread of discussion about using a logo like "Proposed for Boost" instead of the proper boost.png logo, but people got bored and we failed to reach agreement. I still support this simple mechanism. It encourages authors to get the docs to a good state, but it is quite clear that is not (yet) a Boost reviewed and approved library. A Quickbook [caution This is not yet a Boost library!] is another simple (and popular) option. Paul --- Paul A. Bristow, Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal LA8 8AB UK +44 1539 561830 07714330204 pbristow@hetp.u-net.com