Paul A Bristow wrote: > > | Paul A Bristow wrote: > | > I can't see why Quickbook comments are wanted in the XML. > | > > | We need it in order to do some more post processing of the XML. > | At least that's how I understand Dave's need for it. > > I can see that but wouldn't an explicit mechanism, say [xml ...] be clearer and better, and not clutter the xml with comments. > > It would be helpful to have the licence info replicated of course and > the licence as comment mechanism does now does that - or does > it? > > Or is there something more complicated here?
No, you have good points. DocBook has the right facility already in the form of <phrase role="some stuff">. Dave, I think Paul is right. We do not need the Quickbook comments in the XML. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Boost-docs mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe and other administrative requests: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
