On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Dave Thomas wrote:

# 
# On Dec 17, 2003, at 11:14, Chad Fowler wrote:
# 
# > This sounds good generally.  Did you mean it to be:
# > $datadir/rdoc/std/rdoc/html
# >    and
# > $datadir/rdoc/site/rdoc/ri
# >
# 
# no - I just included the rdoc to show where the previous directory 
# names matched up.


OK.  I figured I must have missed something.

# >
# > What's the reasoning behind site/rdoc and std/rdoc?  I may be 
# > misreading
# > this.
# >
# 
# This is so that you can install point releases of Ruby without 
# overwriting documentation installed by the local users. The standard 
# distribution loads documentation for internals andthings in lib/ and 
# ext/. If you download (say) DBI and ask to install its documentation 
# globally, it'll go into site/


My confusion on this point was about the "rdoc" part, so the answer to 
the first question answered this one too.

Thanks!
Chad