Andy Little wrote:
"Joel de Guzman" wrote
It's unlike, say, wikipedia, for example, where there is a common
L&F. The reason is because wikipedia, from its inception, used
its content management tool (wiki) which has its own L&F.
Anyone contributing to it implies acceptance of the L&F.
IMO, BoostBook and QuickBook is our ticket to that.
Yikes! I seriously didnt know that!...
I hadnt realised quite what I was buying into when I started using QuickBook. It
sounds like convenience is bought at quite a high price. I had assumed that it
was possible to modify the QuickBook L & F for purposes outside boost else its
kind of a one job tool and makes me wary of investing too much in it. Some
responses on this list also gave me the impression that it (is/will be) possible
to use Quickbook other than for its use for writing boost documentation. Are you
saying that I as the author have no control of L & F when using QuickBook?
Of course you do! No one forces you to use/distribute the CSS with the
common L&F. Of course, *by default* you get the common L&F and I don't
see anything wrong with that.
Regards,
João
-------------------------------------------------------
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
