From: "James Britt (rubydev)" <james@...>
Date: 2002-02-11T00:24:41+09:00
Subject: RE: Ruby Embedded Documentation

>
> > I'm not sure if I would sit down and write transformations for a
> > custom RDoc XML language.
> 
> Probably not, but if you suddenly find a desperate need to, for
> instance, embed your documentation into a database, a schema which
> defines modules, classes, methods, variables etc would be much easier to
> process than DocBook.
> 

If the RDoc markup contained at least as much information as DocBook, such that
RDoc could be transformed to DocBook, then those DocBook tools are still available.

Trying to shoehorn RDoc into DocBook for the sake of reusing existing tools may
cause more aggravation than good in the long run.

Now, whether or not DocBook couldn't provide all that one would want in RDoc
is a different matter.  But the first priority should be to have a markup that
provides all the metadata desired.



James