On Jan 30, 2009, at 07:51 AM, Roger P. wrote:
also the links to files like a.png point [in error] to a.png.rhtml
And when you click on those files, it shows the requires and last
modified file dates–it would be way nice to display the file
itself, as
well [or is it supposed to?]
I’ll fix this, either these files shouldn’t show up (RDoc bug) or
a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my
oversight). I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think it
is overzealous now.
There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 05:18 AM, Thomas S. wrote:
released separately as unmaintained software. I don�t plan to make
My concern is for the loss of the sidebars. While I know frames are
out
of fashion, having a sidebar was very convenient. Where as scrolling
to
the bottom of a page is not.
I’m confused, the default RDoc template never had a sidebar. If you
don’t want to scroll so far down the class list, use the search at the
top.
rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
options.
Also, I think it would be nice if RDoc offered a few template options,
varying up the layout, suitable to variant preferences and/or project
needs, eg. small projects versus large ones.
Go for it! RDoc will now automatically load other gems if they have
an rdoc/discover.rb. Load your extra template or what-have-you from
there and it’ll be used automatically by RDoc.
Finally, what is the state of creating custom templates? Are we using
rhtml now? Is their a tutorial anywhere on the topic?
I’m not sure how easy that is to add to Darkfish, but you’re welcome
to try. I decided to release RDoc in its current state because it was
good enough. It’s easy to add templates to the old HTML generator,
look at rdoc_html_templates for inspiration.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 06:33 AM, Thomas S. wrote:
I’ve been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it
not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file’s contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a
way
to look at the source in full.
more -t and vim -t work very well for me…
Navigating via a web browser across various files quickly gets
tedious. It’s a breeze with a decent editor (one that has tags
support).
2009/1/31 Rados³aw Bu³at [email protected]:
The are many linked files that ends up with 404, for example:
page: http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
section FILES: bullet_toggle_minus.png (I think that all .png files
does not work)
I’ve filed a bug for this
martin
Roger P. wrote:
It definitely looks better.
I’d like to see the class index above the file index - I rarely find
the file index useful and almost always use the class index.
I whole heartedly agree with that.
James Edward G. II
+1
I assume that’s referring to the leftmost side bars on pages like
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc.html
?
Right. I see. It’s on the class pages, but not on the main page.
I can understand that for people who don’t bother to make their own
custom webpage for a project, but I almost always do. So for me the
normal rendering of README.txt makes more sense
(http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/README.txt.html). Not sure what the answer
is, maybe a new command line flag.
T.
On Jan 30, 2009, at 13:46, Eric H. [email protected] wrote:
a .document file is missing that should exclude these files (my
oversight). I made RDoc attempt to pull in more files, but I think
it is overzealous now.
There should only be three files in that list, all .txt files
Actually, it’s a Hoe issue. I’ll have fixed documentation up when I’m
next at a shell
On Jan 30, 2009, at 23:00 PM, Clifford H. wrote:
Eric H. wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
If you don’t file a bug it won’t get fixed.
Done. I wasn’t familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
hence my posting here. Thanks!
If you think it could possibly be a bug, best to file it!
That’s my rule.
Eric H. wrote:
This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/
I do like how the new sample looks.
I also do like a few things from the “old way” as well that I miss
slightly
: the method index, and the graphviz class tree.
[i.e. from RDoc Documentation]
Was there a reason they were excluded?
Thanks for your work.
-=r
Eric H. wrote:
On Jan 30, 2009, at 03:27 AM, Clifford H. wrote:
Has the behavior of #:nodoc: changed?
If you don’t file a bug it won’t get fixed.
Done. I wasn’t familiar enough with RDoc to be sure it was a bug,
hence my posting here. Thanks!
Clifford H…
On Feb 3, 2009, at 7:36 AM, Stefano C. wrote:
instead of the default one. Instead, the documentation still used
the default
one.
That’s my fault – I hard-coded the path in the templates. I’ve added
a ticket to my tracker for this:
dev(E)iate
and I’ll look at fixing it this weekend (at least for the darkfish-
rdoc gem).
Alle Thursday 29 January 2009, Eric H. ha scritto:
old HTML generator) ever, but somebody may be interested in taking
over maintainership of the rdoc_chm generator.
rdoc will automatically detect rdoc_html_templates and rdoc_chm, so
you only need to install them to make them usable via command-line
options.
Very well done! I’m glad that at last we can have rdoc documentation
without
frames.
The only thing I don’t like is the default style sheet, both because I
find
the green upon gray unpleasant and because the default font looks
horrible in
my browser. This leads to the following question:
does the darkfish generator use the custom style sheet passed by the
user
using the --style command line option? If so, either I’m doing something
wrong
or there’s a bug. I tried the following command:
rdoc --style=my_rdoc.css *.rb
thinking that it would produce documentation using the my_rdoc.css style
sheet
instead of the default one. Instead, the documentation still used the
default
one. I also tried variants of the above command (for example using -s or
without the = or giving the full path of my_rdoc.css), but with the same
results. Am I missing something, is it a bug or by design the darkfish
generator doesn’t take into account the --style option (in which case I
think
the documentation for the option should mention it)?
Thanks
Stefano
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).
Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. “README.txt”
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
result in 404’s currently.
Thanks!
-=r
On Feb 25, 2009, at 14:27, Roger P. wrote:
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).
Thanks for doing that.
As a note the links to the files, i.e. “README.txt”
on
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
Not for me:
$ curl -I http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:55:42 GMT
Server: Apache
Last-Modified: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 05:59:15 GMT
ETag: “cf2f-463b7ef7db2c0”
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
Eric H. [email protected] wrote:
http://rdoc.rubyforge.org/RDoc/RDoc.html#M000417
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
You didn’t read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.
On Feb 25, 2009, at 17:30, matt neuburg wrote:
on
Accept-Ranges: bytes
Content-Length: 53039
Vary: Accept-Encoding
Content-Type: text/html
You didn’t read what he said. He said that on that page are links to
README.txt and other files, and those links are duds. m.
ah, oops! fixed, RDoc 2.4.1 forthcoming shortly.
Roger P. wrote:
I’ve been meaning to make this suggestion for a while now: Would it not
be more useful if the file page showed the entire file’s contents
verbatim? This is one thing that in my mind is missing from RDoc --a way
to look at the source in full.
Oh, that’s a very interesting thought. +1
+1 for me.
Also a nice thought would be to be able to “open the full file” from the
code snippet pop-downs–like a link back to see that method within
context.
Now that I think about it, including the source of C methods which have
no documentation would also be quite helpful–in that case it basically
is the only documentation you get [ex: shoes].
Thanks!
-=r
On Feb 2, 2009, at 06:29, Roger P. wrote:
I also do like a few things from the “old way” as well that I miss
slightly
: the method index, and the graphviz class tree.
[i.e. from RDoc Documentation]
Was there a reason they were excluded?
I restored a method index from the main page in RDoc 2.4.
Diagram generation is currently disabled because it needs vast
improvements and was pretty but otherwise mostly useless (I really
like it but have never actually used it).
Eric H. wrote:
This release of RDoc brings some big changes. Most notably Michael
Granger�s Darkfish generator has become the default output format for
RDoc! Michael put a ton of great work into this, and it looks quite
lovely. Check out the RDoc documentation for a sample:
I like darkfish. Thought I’d pipe in a couple suggestions.
-
the method names include a prefix ‘#’
which makes single letter method names hard to read
-
the font is low contrast so harder to read.
Just talking out loud.
=r
Roger P. wrote:
-
the method names include a prefix ‘#’
which makes single letter method names hard to read
-
the font is low contrast so harder to read.
Just talking out loud.
=r
I totally concur about the low contrast fonts. Accessibility gurus say
DON’T DO THIS.
People with aging eyes - like me - find these fonts significantly harder
to read. People with genuine vision impairments find them simply
impossible, often.
Iron rule: if you put something on a website which people are expected
to read, make it black font against a light background. Large fonts can
be reverse-color - IF distinctly large AND well contrasted with a dark
back ground. This is a basic design aspect of webpages (or CSS sheets)
which MUST be attended to if usability matters to anyone at all.
t.
–
Tom C., MS MA, LMHC - Private practice Psychotherapist
Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A: (360) 920-1226
<< [email protected] >> (email)
<< TomCloyd.com >> (website)
<< sleightmind.wordpress.com >> (mental health weblog)