On 2/2/06 11:23 AM, "Rene Rivera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joel de Guzman wrote: > >> 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? > > It's consistency for the plain reason of reducing the jarring visual > context switches a visitor would go through when reading through the web > site. Just think of all the design flips one goes through when reading > the current web site. > >> If we are going for uniformity, then we should definitely strive >> for a common L&F for both the "standalone" and "web" docs. > > I don't think there's an overwhelming reason to make offline and online > docs look exactly the same. They are specifically design for different > uses so what is good in one may not be good in the other. I'm thinking the opposite way: I see no need to make them different. I don't think that we have any online-exclusive docs at all besides the regression testing. All other files are copied into the archives we make for each release. (I know that some BoostBuild-based docs on www.boost.org are redirected to another server, but they are still copied into the offline releases.) You're supporting a distinction that really doesn't have a difference. In fact, we shouldn't create online docs, since the information would be cut off from anyone using an archive without Internet access. Any difference wouldn't be between off- and on-line (since we don't really have on-line docs), but between docs that are automatically generated (with BoostBook possibly with QuickBook and/or Doxygen, or with RST.) and docs that are manually created. Automatic docs can be easily configured to use whatever "standard" CSS we provide. We can change manual pages to use the same CSS (and/or transition those docs to automatic creation). > >> 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. Sure, it's not >> perfect, but it's the result of endless discussion on this list >> and the boost list as well. > > Exactly :-) Which is why I didn't want to change the offline L&F. And > why I tried to keep the basic elements of the L&F in the online L&F of > the docs. I think the current BoostBook L&F is too large and sparse, so I don't mind if it changes to match the trial rendition. But the advantage of CSS is that we can apply global tweaks through a single file. > >> While I welcome improvement tweaks >> here and there, I'd be sad if we'll just throw away the work done >> so far. > > I should say that it's not my intent to throw away work on the online > L&F either. So if there's some style that I missed to incorporate from > the BoostBook L&F to the online equivalent please point it out. -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT 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
