From: Chad Perrin <code@...>
Date: 2011-08-03T14:39:25+09:00
Subject: Re: Documentation Improvement Proposal

--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 12:03:27PM +0900, Josh Cheek wrote:
>=20
> I'm generally satisfied with Ruby's docs. There really are only two
> things I take issues with. The first is presentation, I prefer the
> ruby-doc.org style of presentation.

I loathe the frameset style of ruby-doc.org for things like Array
documentation.  There are too many levels of navigation required to reach
things sometimes, and lots of back-buttoning when the first guess about
where to find something turns out to be wrong.


>
> The second is completeness, rdoc.info is much more complete to the
> point that I'm probably going to switch. It also has docs for gems,
> which I think is really cool. And it filters the list as you search,
> which okay. I just find its format harder to follow (possibly because
> I'm used to ruby-doc, but IDK, I like that giant pool of methods at the
> top of ruby-doc much better than the list at the top of rdoc).

I did not know rdoc.info existed.  If it's as complete as you make it
sound, it's probably going to be my main go-to for Web-based Ruby
documentation from now on.  The interface is awesome (now that I know
where to find core).  Thanks for mentioning it.

--=20
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]

--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk442vkACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKWBxACg3JPRQu2MdqaLqP4N5MkvVkgS
8X4An3Aq+yGLRM8Y7BQ4TKk09KXbQvHA
=CFLD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu--