Is there a reason why rake doc:rails doesn''t use the (to my eyes, nicer) sdoc template used for api.rubyonrails.org? Happy to throw together a patch if the reasons are purely historical Fred -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Frederick Cheung < frederick.cheung@gmail.com> wrote: Is there a reason why rake doc:rails doesn''t use the (to my eyes,> nicer) sdoc template used for api.rubyonrails.org? > > Happy to throw together a patch if the reasons are purely historical >+1 from here. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
This is interesting. A while ago I was asking exactly the opposite: to replace api.rubyonrails.org by the version generated with "rake doc:rails". The reason is that it is currently very hard to point someone to some specific bit of the API since it uses frames. Another disadvantage of using frames is that it is not cache-friendly. I tried o F5/Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5 in my Chrome browser to get the updated version of the Rails api but it didn''t updated the frame page. Only the index itself was updated. I don''t think api.rubyonrails.org should use frames. Now you want to introduce the same problems to the version generated with "rake doc:rails"? Please, don''t do that. Cheers, Rodrigo. Em 12-07-2012 06:15, Frederick Cheung escreveu:> Is there a reason why rake doc:rails doesn''t use the (to my eyes, > nicer) sdoc template used for api.rubyonrails.org? > > Happy to throw together a patch if the reasons are purely historical > > Fred >-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:This is interesting. A while ago I was asking exactly the opposite: to> replace api.rubyonrails.org by the version generated with "rake > doc:rails". > > The reason is that it is currently very hard to point someone to some > specific bit of the API since it uses frames. > > Another disadvantage of using frames is that it is not cache-friendly. I > tried o F5/Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5 in my Chrome browser to get the updated version > of the Rails api but it didn''t updated the frame page. > > Only the index itself was updated. > > I don''t think api.rubyonrails.org should use frames. Now you want to > introduce the same problems to the version generated with "rake doc:rails"? > Please, don''t do that. >Regardless of the points you personally don''t like about the current API, the Rails documentation should ideally be consistent in those places where it has control. It is OK that the gem installer uses Darkfish, it is OK that some websites use YARD or their own generators, but doc:rails should match api.rubyonrails.org in my opinion whatever their content is. It is very likely that for Rails 4 we have a different generator though. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Xavier Noria <fxn@hashref.com> wrote:> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote: > >> This is interesting. A while ago I was asking exactly the opposite: to >> replace api.rubyonrails.org by the version generated with "rake doc:rails". >> >> The reason is that it is currently very hard to point someone to some >> specific bit of the API since it uses frames. >> >> Another disadvantage of using frames is that it is not cache-friendly. I >> tried o F5/Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5 in my Chrome browser to get the updated version >> of the Rails api but it didn''t updated the frame page. >> >> Only the index itself was updated. >> >> I don''t think api.rubyonrails.org should use frames. Now you want to >> introduce the same problems to the version generated with "rake doc:rails"? >> Please, don''t do that. > > > Regardless of the points you personally don''t like about the current API, > the Rails documentation should ideally be consistent in those places where > it has control. > > It is OK that the gem installer uses Darkfish, it is OK that some websites > use YARD or their own generators, but doc:rails should match > api.rubyonrails.org in my opinion whatever their content is. > > It is very likely that for Rails 4 we have a different generator though.Any ideas what will be used for R4?> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti < hi@nicolassanguinetti.info> wrote: Any ideas what will be used for R4?>Not sure yet. The goal is to provide better ancestry chains. What I''d like to do is to compute the ancestry chains first, then run the generator of choice up to the point where it has built its structures, replace/rearrange them with our data, and let it continue. I know that can be done with YARD, and I am also exploring RDoc. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.