From: Michael Davis <mdavis@...>
Date: 2002-03-03T09:11:10+09:00
Subject: Re: RDoc question

Dave Thomas wrote:

> Michael Davis <mdavis@sevainc.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>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?
>>
> 
> But will the link be relative to the original source, or to the
> generated .html - that's the problem I was facing adding support for
> arbitrary local links. If anycome has any good suggestions I'd be
> happy to include it - it would be nice to be able to have local
> images.
> 
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 

I would be happy with the following:

    rdoc.rb file1.rb file2.txt

where the following is included in file1.rb:

    # More info at file2.txt

I would like file2.txt to be a link that actually opens file2.txt.  If I 
use file2.rb as the filename rather than file2.txt, then it works as 
expected.  The issue for is that file2.rb has only RDoc information and 
no actual ruby code, thus the different extension. Currently, RDoc does 
not convert the reference to file2.txt to a link even though file2.txt 
is one of the files used with RDoc.  Supporting extensions other than 
.rb in this way would have some value for me.


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