I'll take a closer look at RDOC.  If it meets the following
criteria or could be extended to meet those criteria it may be
the path of least resistance:

# 1) The high-level language code and the system
# documentation of the program come from the
# same set of source files.

# 2)The documentation and high-level language
# code are complementary and should address
# the same elements of the algorithms being
# written.

# 3)The literate program should have logical
# subdivisions. Knuth called these modules or
# sections.

# 4) The system should be presented in an order
# based upon logical considerations rather than
# syntactic constraints.

# 5)The documentation should include an examination
# of alternative solutions and should suggest
# future maintenance problems and extensions.

# 6) The documentation should include a description
# of the problem and its solution. This
# should include all aids such as mathematics
# and graphics that enhance communication of
# the problem statement and the understanding
# of its challenge.

# 7)Cross references, indices, and different fonts for
# text, high-level language keywords, variable
# names, and literals should be reasonably
# automatic and obvious in the source and the
# documentation.

The list above is from from Bart Child's article 
"Literate Programming, a Practioner's View" which can be found at 

http://www.tug.org/TUGboat/Articles/tb13-3/childs.pdf

Larry
 
On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 05:05:32PM +0900, Charles Comstock wrote:
> Larry Felton Johnson wrote:
> 
> >Funny you should mention that.  I've been looking over the
> >CWEB syntax thinking about writing a simple tangle/weave system
> >in and for ruby as an exercise.  I've always been interested in
> >literate programming, never really done anything with it except
> >read the docs.  
> >
> >I was thinking about something modelled on cweb as the source files,
> >xhtml as the weave output, and ruby as the tangle output.
> >
> >Larry
> >
> >On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 08:23:46PM +0900, Mauricio Fernndez wrote:
> >
> >>On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 01:18:14PM +0900, Aredridel wrote:
> >>
> >>>In addition to rather liking test-first coding (which I'm just now
> >>>getting into), I like document-first coding.  Write tests (expect them
> >>>to fail), write docs (expect them to be more complete than the code),
> >>>then write code that fulfils the tests and matches the docs.
> >>
> >>Time to write RWEB? :-P
> >>
> >>-- 
> Umm isn't RDOC basically RWEB?  I mean it's not really fancy as far as 
> the weave output but I mean it's pretty similar really.  It's just the 
> overall weave output isn't designed to be read in book form.  You could 
> just make a new formatter for RDOC that was more article/bookish.
> 
> Charles Comstock