David A. Black wrote:
> I wouldn't want to think that a Ruby site I created would necessarily
> be considered untrustworthy because it didn't have a particular
> navigation bar.  Maybe those sites that want to join together can do
> so, but embrace an open-ended model when it comes to growth and
> initiative and trust :-)

Ok, maybe not "trustworthiness", but maybe "officialishness", or 
"officialocity" or some other similar word that my english teacher would 
faint if she heard me using?

I'll tell you where I'm coming from.  Say I'm new to the language and 
want some documentation on something in the standard library, say 
"webrick".  Although it's part of the standard library, when I search 
around on the official ruby site, I can't find out anything about it, so 
I go to Google and search for it, and find a site...  only that site 
doesn't seem to be a very official Ruby site...

I can maybe trust the documentation there, but how do I know that I'm 
not going to be bombarded by popups on that site, or that the site isn't 
some historical thing from before webrick became part of the official 
distribution, or what?

(of course, I'm not picking on webrick now, I'm just trying to show the 
problem with random, open, enthusiast-driven sites).

I think it would really help if, when something is adopted into the 
standard library, there were an effort made to adopt the website and 
documentation as well, so that it was clear to everybody that this is no 
longer just some ruby hacker's pet project, but an official part of Ruby.

The same basic concept applies to ruby-doc.org.  Is this just some fan's 
attempt to document Ruby, which may be incomplete or out of date, or is 
this the actively maintained Ruby documentation?

See my concerns?

Ben