Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Abrahams wrote: >> Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I still don't understand why there needs to be a difference >>>between the L&F of the "standalone" documentation and the "web" >>>based documentation. Is there a rationale? >> Good question. I really liked what I saw in the Boost doc pages >> (e.g. Python's) that had been transformed by Rene's work. >> >>>If we are going for uniformity, then we should definitely strive >>>for a common L&F for both the "standalone" and "web" docs. I'd >>>say there are lots of good designs found in Rene's rendition but >>>it's too big a departure from the BoostBook L&F that we have >>> worked hard on to reach it's current form. >> I disagree, though I might be convinced otherwise. > > Disagree on what? Common L&F? That it's too big a departure from > the BoostBook L&F?
The latter. > I think Rene's >> looks more professional and accessible. > > IMO, yes it is more refined, to say the least. Yes. >>>Sure, it's not perfect, but it's the result of endless discussion >>>on this list and the boost list as well. While I welcome >>>improvement tweaks here and there, I'd be sad if we'll just throw >>>away the work done so far. >>> >>>I'm hoping we'll reach an agreement somewhere around the bend. >>>Perhaps the current BoostBook scheme can incorporate some of the >>>good aspects of Rene's design, subject to deliberation and >>> discussion, of course. > >> In that case, there's your reason for a difference. > > Sorry, I don't quite understand. What's the reason for a > difference? That there will be pressure to keep the BoostBook pages looking as they are. If we say that all the pages should be styled the same way and nobody is willing to change the BoostBook pages, it inhibits Rene's ability to do something different (IMO better) for the website at large. >> And I guess I'll be keeping my docs out of BoostBook until the >> formatting looks as good to me as what we get on the site. The >> incentive to change just isn't there. > > I could have said the same thing with the Spirit docs > as they were. But where does that leave us? I bit the bullet > and chose to follow whatever comes out of discussion over > L&F at the time it was being deliberated. What has been done > was a fair amount of discussion, tweak, discussion, tweak > to move us closer to something that was supposedly agreeable > to most. But you were already using BoostBook, or at least QuickBook, at that time, n'est-ce-pas? I have no BoostBook docs yet. > I certainly didn't like many of what has come out of the consensus, > but it was consensus none the less. Were all those in vain? No, I don't think so. > If so, then there's really no point in continuing this > discussion. Maybe we should just let it be and let each author > choose his own L&F just as, say, W3C does (there's no commom L&F, > each document has its own style). Bad idea, I think. >> I agree that having a little color is a really nice thing. And >> Spirit's banner is beautiful. > > Color is good! Otherwise, we'll still be viewing monochrome > TVs and monitors ;) Color is good, but text that frequently changes color can be difficult to read. >>>Ok, I hope that's a good set of request for change. There are >>> certainly things I do not like (e.g. underlined links, > > Look at the Table of Contents: http://tinyurl.com/85erh > How awfully distracting (too busy). Yeah, the underlines aren't good in that context. > Compare: http://tinyurl.com/b98fs Ultimately I want us to use Jonathan Turkanis' menu control, so this should be a non-issue. > It gets worse when we go to the code blocks with links. Example? >> I'm still trying to decide which of those link styles I think is more >> distracting. I think there are no really *good* solutions for link >> styles. They're all compromises. > >>>choice (or lack) of color, >> That's a cultural thing to some extent. The Brazilian guys who work >> as painters up here in New England sometimes ruffle feathers when >> there's a miscommunication about color choices. It always comes out >> way too bright for the local taste. > > I know. But certainly, that does that not mean that going for > the least common denominator (monochrome B&W) is better. Nor does it mean monochrome isn't better. -- 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
