Re: A downside of qbk

On 11/6/2011 3:21 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Sun Nov 06 2011, Dave Abrahams<dave-AT-boostpro.com>  wrote:
>
>> I've been meaning to point out the difference between
>>
>> https://github.com/boost-lib/parameter/blob/master/doc/index.rst
>> https://github.com/boost-lib/spirit/blob/master/doc/introduction.qbk
>>
>> As long as qbk is a full-fledged programming language, we may never be
>> able to expect better.  Any ideas?  Does anyone think we can possibly
>> convince GitHub to include a qbk processor?
>
> Actually, I just had an idea: make sure that qbk is an extension of
> markdown syntax, which IMO is winning the wiki-like syntax wars.  Then
> we could get reasonable rendering for many things even where there's no
> qbk support at all.

You do realize that the Markdown that Github uses it not "real" 
markdown? And that a qbk document that was a superset of the "real" 
Markdown would render incorrectly on Github? (and that's just the 
markdown subset I'm talking about)


-- 
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org (msn) - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim,yahoo,skype,efnet,gmail