From: Jim Freeze <jim@...>
Date: 2002-10-24T02:04:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby.bah! (was Re: XMLParser, NQXML... and also RAA.succ)

On Wednesday, 23 October 2002 at 15:32:56 +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:07:46 +0900, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> 
> >> Ruby, on the other hand, has two going on three different
> >> formats, if I'm understanding what Sean is saying correctly.
> > Sadly yes... however there is a saving grace with rubydoc, it's
> > standard is XML and the other utilities export XML... which means
> > that anyone can write a stylesheet that'll convert rdoc-> rubydoc
> > or rd-> rubydoc. These stylesheets will be included in the base
> > rubydoc installation.
> 
> In some ways, though, I still think that this is probably the wrong
> approach. IMO, either rdoc or rd needs to die. Ideally, rdoc will
> pick up the ability to parse rd comments cleanly (perhaps spitting
> out warnings) so that there only needs to be one primary
> documentation tool.
> 

I have discussed this issue with the rdtool creators and they are
on board with the Ruby-Doc effort. All raa app will be converted
to the new rubydoc standard when it is available.

[much snippage]

Man, you guys are long winded... ;`


-- 
Jim Freeze
----------
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy?  Who knows?  Who cares?