Re: A downside of qbk

On 11/7/2011 10:04 PM, Dave Abrahams wrote:
>
> on Sun Nov 06 2011, Rene Rivera<grafikrobot-AT-gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Actually no, it is.  It's only GH-flavored markdown in tickets and wikis
> and such.

Hm.. I have to say that's not actually clear from their docs then.

But from the docs Mateusz pointed to it actually sounds easy enough to 
write a basic Quickbook to HTML generator in Python.


-- 
-- 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