From: Jeremy Siek (jsiek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 14:28:26
I agree with Beman. Plain HTML should be used for boost docs.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
bdawes> At 01:29 PM 8/14/2002, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
bdawes>
bdawes> >> IMHO, so long as HTML is the Boost standard documentation format, I
bdawes> >> think we should keep things restricted to vanilla HTML.
bdawes> >Javascript is a legal part of HTML at least for ~6 years now. And it is
bdawes> >standart supported everywhere.
bdawes> >
bdawes> >> I am all for using tools to generate that HTML where useful and do so
bdawes> >myself, but I
bdawes> >> think the distributed docs should be simple.
bdawes> >I do not use documentation generation tools and javascript is the only
bdawes> >reasonable way to support different pages in sync.
bdawes>
bdawes> Gennadiy,
bdawes>
bdawes> Any small advantages from using javascript are swamped by the disadvantage
bdawes> that the docs from your library is are different enough from other Boost
bdawes> libraries that it is disconcerting to users.
bdawes>
bdawes> At least on my setup, the Boost.Test docs don't look as nice as the other
bdawes> libraries. The animation is particularly irritating to my eye. The grey
bdawes> border detracts, too, IMO.
bdawes>
bdawes> It is fun to try different web page tricks. But maybe not for the Boost
bdawes> docs.
bdawes>
bdawes> --Beman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Siek http://php.indiana.edu/~jsiek/
Ph.D. Student, Indiana Univ. B'ton email: jsiek_at_[hidden]
C++ Booster (http://www.boost.org) office phone: (812) 855-3608
----------------------------------------------------------------------