From: Michael Davis <mdavis@...>
Date: 2002-03-03T07:53:02+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc question

Dave Thomas wrote:

> Michael Davis <mdavis@sevainc.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>A link is automatically created for more_info.rb and works
>>great. However, if I named my file more_info.txt instead of
>>more_info.rb, the link is not created.  Can an enhancement be made to
>>RDoc to look for other extensions in addition to .rb so I can use
>>more_info.txt and get a link to more_info.txt?
>>
> 
> I _believe_ you can currently do this by prepending http: to the
> name. However, you'll have to manage the relative path between the
> documentation file and the generated html.
> 
> For example, you have a directory containing  x.rb and x.txt. You
> generate RDoc documentation, and it puts the result into
> doc/files/x_rb.html. A reference form this to x.txt would have to be
> ../../x.txt. If you then move the documentation (say onto the web),
> the link will be broken. This is why I only support internal links to
> files that RDoc manages.
> 
> However, you _can_ use :include: to include a .txt file into a .rb
> file and make its contents accessible that way.
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 

The draw back to http:/ is that local documention will need to hit the 
internet to see the page.  Can we insert a link that is document relative?

-- 
Michael Davis
Database Architect and Senior Software Engineer, Seva Inc.
Email: mdavis@sevainc.com