From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2002-07-23T04:31:34+09:00
Subject: Re: rdtool and rdoc

Hi --

On Tue, 23 Jul 2002, David Douthitt wrote:

> I took a look at your comparison page.  I've not used either, but
> some things stood out to me...
>
> What stands out to me is that the RDTool result is simple,
> single-paged, and presumably easy to print or to convert to other
> forms via printing.  It also is likely to be easy to read in lynx
> and other similar browsers (including speech-enabled browsers for
> the blind).
>
> The RDoc result is heavily frames-based and seems specifically
> designed for Web-access.  It's cute and quite usable in the Web
> context, but likely not as easily accessible outside of the Web.
>
> For me, seems like RDTool is more generally usable.  Also,
> programmers SHOULD write documentation - and keep it up to date.

RDoc is pluggable; there are different backends, and more can be
written.  In particular, there's an XML backend, which can be
post-processed to just about anything.  (For example, I've written a
suite of XSL-FO stylesheets for it -- see contrib/xslfo in the RDoc
distribution.)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav