From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-06-12T11:38:21-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:03314] Re: about documentation

Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:

> Also, it is important that from the outset these formats consist of
> printable characters only.  The bi-lingual nature of Ruby development
> makes this an interesting definition, but what I don't want to see is
> embedded Word documents, and other such binary stuff!  Do people agree
> that this is a sensible constraint?

Before we go reinventing too many wheels here, why don't we all just
try rdtool? It has a big following, and much of the RAA is already
documented using it. Let's try it for 6 months before deciding to use
something different. At that time, rd2xml wouldn't be too hard to
write (I hacked up rd2latex for the book in about 15 minutes).

If you want to go this way, I could post a .pdf extract from the
appendix from the book which describes rd. It hasn't been reviewed,
and doesn't really say much more than the documentation that comes
with rdtool, but it might be helpful.


Regards


Dave