But I found the documentation of libraries that use adoc to be uncomfortable to read. I do not know if this is the tool itself or maybe the correlation between the choice of the tool and the devotion to documentation quality, or maybe something else. It is quite subjective. The older libraries' documentation (using BoostDoc) seemed more friendly and easier to navigate. But to write and maintain such documentation is a challenge. Last year something broke in my pipeline (QuickDoc, xstlproc) and to this day I am not able to determine what it is. So, relying on too complex flows, which become obsolete over time, also doesn't seem like a good idea.
I wonder if any of you have similar thoughts, and if you can recommend something for writing good quality and user friendly documentation. To me, QuickBook is the most powerful tool for writing documentation, so I'm not going to recommend anything new. As the changelog says, the latest version supports direct HTML output, but I haven't tried it. I imagine, it should work for simple docs without BoostBook/DocBook specific features.
I think, it would be very useful to continue improving QuickBook, in particular to support additional output formats, maybe even AsciiDoc. We have lots of documentation written in it, and new libraries use it as well.
Perhaps, if you post some details about your problems with QuickBook, someone will be able to help.
+1.