-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <20020905135318.A80433 / freeze.org>, Jim Freeze <jim / freeze.org> wrote: >On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 01:41:37AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote: >> "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair / soyabean.com.au> writes: >> >> > - we already have doc formats in Ruby; let's evolve them and >> > "almost port" POD if necessary (I don't even know what in >> > particular is so great about it). - - The great part about POD is that it isn't great, it's the absolute minimum required to provide some structure to a document. You can quite easily read it with /bin/cat. >> >> I for one would be very interested in this. What would we want to add >> to rdoc format to make it more generally useful. >> >> Tables of contents and indices spring to mind. There are also some >> great ideas on the Feature Request list on SourceForge. >> >> I'd be very happy to open up RDoc development to get it moving forward >> if folks were interested. >> >>From my perspective, I think that rdoc fits the bill nicely. >Some features I can think of are: > > 1) output to single page html > 2) output to man page > 3) output to ri format > > - - An rd2 output format would take care of the first two. I think there's a lot of potential in the idea of using rdoc as the document creating tool and something POD-like as the output format. The one problem that I see is that rdoc produces output that is some ways "ruby-smart", it knows methods belong to classes. It would be good if the basic output format could preserve that knowledge in some way. As far as I know, rd2 is just markup. - - Also, there is quite a bit of existing rd documentation already. There's just been no unified way to get at it. - - Booker C. Bense -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBPXeetGTWTAjn5N/lAQFMBAP+JPTzRNGYBO3SoGsurQuiSN4Lh8DVebFe eqyRzNuoJMnTVdnaM6DxlJxh93aYeJ3No51Pm2/+eaF+Avwym164nU8bkhwqBwqj hDmlvxmrVOI1XrB1Ol8V8Aq5r3WzBrEu8AUjoLu4Moo/7U5aEi7f4QfwAxFFfdih wT/IzQYPoL0= =7Dxg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----