Rene Rivera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Reece Dunn wrote: > >> Some of the documentation have inconsistent/odd layouts (I >> understand that most of this depends on whether the docs are in HTML >> or generated from BoostBook or QuickBook): > > It not only depends on that. But also on how much effort I put into > transforming the non-BoostBook documentation into a presentable and > consistent form. You see all those docs are dynamically extracted and > reformatted from a boost_1_33_1.zip archive. So it's a bit of work to > accomplish that. > > For the comments below I should note that the styles I'm using are > *not* meant for the standalone documentation. It is specifically > designed for the website only.
What is "standalone" documentation? >> * any: the navigation helpers have a border and a grey background >> when they should have no border and a white BG. > > That is intentional. All groups of navigation elements have that > style. The consistency helps in finding them within the rest of the > website content. What is a "navigation helper?" >> * wave: ToC is squashed in the center of the page - I would prefer >> to have this indented slightly (10%? and have a slight BG color, >> e.g. #EEE); the navigation elements are center aligned which is >> inconsistent with the other docs. > > Yep... There are various custom HTML looks I haven't fully accounted > for yet. It's a lot of work to go through all the Boost documentation > and tweak styles and transformations. FWIW, you're still having trouble with utf-8: http://boost.redshift-software.com/doc/release/libs/parameter/doc/html/index.html#tutorial (see 2.6.3 in the TOC) >>>> Question: why the plus signs in the bullet lists? Bullets mean >>>> bullets; plus signs mean addition (or "collapsible list item"), no? >>>> It seems needlessly unconventional to me. >>> >>> That's the current, as in the now 1 year old Boost style. It's >>> meant to refer to C++. But like you say it's not a common bullet >>> style. Bullet styles are far ranging, I've seen hundreds. Perhaps >>> one of the square bullet styles would work better :-) >> I agree with Dave on this one: the '+' on the bullets make me want >> to click on them to expand the item. If you want to use '+', how >> about: >> ++ Item 1 >> ++ Item 2 >> ++ Item 3 >> that way, it has more of a reference to C++ and doesn't make you >> want to expand the items. However, using a standard bullet symbol >> (circle, square, etc.) would be better. > > Yea I think the squares is the way to go. It's not worth the effort to > come up with some custom look. What's wrong with good-ol' filled circles? Isn't that standard? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
