Most web browsers don't render modern static websites with AJAX, accessibility, mobile rendering, semantic search etc from file:// for security reasons. The problem is in the web browser, not in the site.
You could generate the static html using an appropriate offline theme. If accepted you'll in any event need either static html in doc/html, or a doc/Jamfile that builds said doc/html. Might as well do that now to give the reviewers an offline doc.
Here is an offline archive of the docs website as pulled and converted by HTTrack: https://github.com/ned14/outcome/releases/download/v2.0-boost-peer-review/ou... I had a quick flick through and it seems mostly the same. Search doesn't work obviously. I would emphasise that the review submission is the public website at https://ned14.github.io/outcome/, and not this zip archive which hasn't received anything like the same amount of validation and checking. Regarding what else you said, yes one could simply run Hugo and tell it to make an offline copy. After all the true source content is written in Markdown, and actually any Markdown to HTML/PDF/DocBook processor will technically do. However the documentation took as long to do as everything else put together (writing, testing, everything else). Some four months of effort - and not just by me either - went into the docs alone. The public website https://ned14.github.io/outcome/ has many problems and issues, but at least I know what those are, and I am prepared for any review feedback on those. Quickly firing out an offline website, getting it properly validated and throwing it into a ZIP file is not doable in the time available to me before the review ends. I only get, at most, two free hours per day and those go on writing emails like this one. Regarding how these docs would end up in Boost if the library is accepted, historically Boost has preferred to generate the docs from their original sources rather than take a copy of the HTML dumped out. I would assume this would continue to be the case, and so we'd need some theme which outputs something with the Boost look and feel, and fix up the Boost servers with Hugo et al and get them into a Jamfile as you say. But those involve decisions by those who maintain the Boost website, and many more weeks of tweaking things in whatever direction is chosen ultimately. As I do not know what that decision would be until after this review, I have kicked that can down the road for now. For all I know, maybe they would prefer a static HTML dump, but I suspect not. You're right Peter that all this is easy, but it is also time consuming and detail orientated. And that means weeks of time must elapse as I am currently on contract. Also, nobody seems yet to have noticed the many problems in the Standardese generated output. There is a fair bit of rope to pull in on that yet too, Jonathan I am sure awaits feedback from this review with anticipation. Niall -- ned Productions Limited Consulting http://www.nedproductions.biz/ http://ie.linkedin.com/in/nialldouglas/