João Abecasis wrote:
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.
Yes. Isn't it already so clear that I am all for freedom of
choice? BoostBook/QuickBook will always be CSS based. That means
total freedom on how you want your L&F. No one will take that
freedom away.
Regards,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
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
