[ruby-talk:03304] Re: about documentation

Hi,

In message "[ruby-talk:03300] Re: about documentation"
    on 00/06/12, Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> writes:
>> I, for one, have some doubts the rdtool is the way to go. I might
>> make an overkill suggestion, but I feel we should be heading into
>> XML-world and maybe make a converter to rd-notation. This said, I've
>> not looked rdtool carefully, so I might be way off here.
>
>I have to admit that I think that rd documentation can be
>ugly. However, it does have one major advantage--it's in the source.

Well... Some rubyist loves RD very much, they wrote even books and 
articles of magazines in RD. On the other hand, some think RD is not
so good. well... it is very difficult to satisfy all hackers...

>I guess one of the questions we need to answer is: do we want a single 
>master format for all documentation, or is it acceptable to have (say) 
>rd for the in-source library documentation and xml for the external
>stuff (such as how-to's).

Maybe, we don't choose one, I think.
If you want XML based documentation format, there is rubyapi2, it is
used for Ruby/Gtk document.
(But I don't know whether rubyapi2 has english web page or not.)

And FYI, ruby interpreter treat embeded document very simply, only ignore
texts between "=begin" and "=end". So, you can write anything you want
between "=begin" and "=end".

---
Tosh
Toshiro Kuwabara