Hi Everyone, Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF format? I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. -- Gavri http://gavri.blogspot.com
> Hi Everyone, > Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all > of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF > format? > > I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my > browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. ><rant> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the API documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of the keys to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is reaching a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation; I''m learning this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure I''m not alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to assume that a developer will have immediate access to a computer to look at the API docs. Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become outdated quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. "How should it be formatted?" Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python docs. "Who is gonna do it?" I will! Someone give me raw txt files and I''ll toss it into some sort of intellegently laid out PDF. "So why don''t you do it yourself?" No way am I going to navigate to EVERY page on the api site and save as text. "Then automate it!" Shut up! :) Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as it seems I am not the only one with this issue. </rant> Lester
* lester <dumpingrounds-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [0415 21:15]: . "Who is gonna do it?" I will!> Someone give me raw txt files and I''ll toss it into some sort of > intellegently laid out PDF.It''s in the code. Read up on rdoc and knock yourself out. -- ''When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge your ass leaves, please'' -- Alien loves Predator Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:56 PM, lester wrote:> >> Hi Everyone, >> Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all >> of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF >> format? >> I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >> browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. > > <rant> > > This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the API > documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third > request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, > don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of the keys > to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily accessible'' I > don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. > Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is reaching > a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation; I''m > learning this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure I''m not > alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to > myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to assume that a > developer will have immediate access to a computer to look at the API > docs. > Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become outdated > quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. "How should it be formatted?" > Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python docs. "Who is gonna do it?" > I will! Someone give me raw txt files and I''ll toss it into some sort > of intellegently laid out PDF. "So why don''t you do it yourself?" No > way am I going to navigate to EVERY page on the api site and save as > text. "Then automate it!" Shut up! :) > > Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as it > seems I am not the only one with this issue. > > </rant> > > Lester >The answer is the same every time. The API docs are generated via rdoc directly from the sources. If you can get rdoc to spit out PDF, or something that can be easily converted to PDF (I have no idea if it can or cannot do this), then there''s your answer. Good luck -Scott _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> * lester <dumpingrounds-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> [0415 > 21:15]: . "Who is gonna do it?" I will! > >> Someone give me raw txt files and I''ll toss it into some sort of >> intellegently laid out PDF. >> > It''s in the code. Read up on rdoc and knock yourself out. >>From http://rdoc.sourceforge.net/doc/index.html:"Currently, HTML is the only supported format." It would seem to me that running the code through rdoc would get us back to where we started, which is the API docs in browser-based layout. Or am I missing something? Lester
Okay, let''s get "practical" about this ;) 1. A lot of people seem to want PDF documentation, so there obviously is a need 2. Api''s are bound to change over time (and get bigger), so it should be automatically generated 3. Paper is not the same as screen, so it should be designed for paper. RDOC processes ruby code and markups the HTML and such. So my take on this is that it shouldn''t be that hard to create a TeX (LaTeX/ConTex/What-Ever-TeX) file which then can be run by PdfTex. I''d be willing to participate in the "design" (read: usable layout for api on paper) of the paper. Kind Regards, Flurin Egger lester wrote:> >> Hi Everyone, >> Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all >> of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF >> format? >> >> I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >> browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. >> > > <rant> > > This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the API > documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third > request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, > don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of the keys > to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily accessible'' I > don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. > > Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is reaching > a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation; I''m > learning this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure I''m not > alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to > myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to assume that a > developer will have immediate access to a computer to look at the API > docs. > Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become outdated > quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. "How should it be formatted?" > Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python docs. "Who is gonna do it?" > I will! Someone give me raw txt files and I''ll toss it into some sort > of intellegently laid out PDF. "So why don''t you do it yourself?" No > way am I going to navigate to EVERY page on the api site and save as > text. "Then automate it!" Shut up! :) > > Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as it > seems I am not the only one with this issue. > > </rant> > > Lester > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> Okay, let''s get "practical" about this ;) > > 1. A lot of people seem to want PDF documentation, so there obviously > is > a need > 2. Api''s are bound to change over time (and get bigger), so it should > be > automatically generated > 3. Paper is not the same as screen, so it should be designed for > paper. > RDOC processes ruby code and markups the HTML and such. So my take on > this is that it shouldn''t be that hard to create a TeX > (LaTeX/ConTex/What-Ever-TeX) file which then can be run by PdfTex. > > I''d be willing to participate in the "design" (read: usable layout for > api on paper) of the paper. >Count me in as well. Anyone else willing to lend a hand? I like Flurin''s suggestion regarding RDoc -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF, as it would make auto-generation easier. Not a TeX guru by any stretch but I''m assuming you can define a TeX stylesheet which can be applied to an HTML file for processing into a paper-friendly (i.e. PDF) format. I''m excited now! See, an hour ago I was swearing up and down that there are no PDF docs, now I have a mission to find a solution. This is a great advertisment for Ruby... "Use Ruby, it lowers your blood pressure!"> lester wrote: > >>> Hi Everyone, >>> Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all >>> of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in >>> PDF >>> format? >>> I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >>> browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. >>> >> <rant> >> >> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the >> API documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the >> third request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon >> guys, don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of >> the keys to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily >> accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. >> >> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is >> reaching a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed >> documentation; I''m learning this stuff from the ground up, and I (and >> I''m sure I''m not alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs >> with notes to myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to >> assume that a developer will have immediate access to a computer to >> look at the API docs. Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper >> docs will become outdated quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. "How >> should it be formatted?" Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python >> docs. "Who is gonna do it?" I will! Someone give me raw txt files >> and I''ll toss it into some sort of intellegently laid out PDF. "So >> why don''t you do it yourself?" No way am I going to navigate to >> EVERY page on the api site and save as text. "Then automate it!" >> Shut up! :) >> >> Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as it >> seems I am not the only one with this issue. >> >> </rant> >> >> Lester >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
On 4/13/05, lester <dumpingrounds-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Okay, let''s get "practical" about this ;) > > > > 1. A lot of people seem to want PDF documentation, so there obviously > > is > > a need > > 2. Api''s are bound to change over time (and get bigger), so it should > > be > > automatically generated > > 3. Paper is not the same as screen, so it should be designed for > > paper. > > RDOC processes ruby code and markups the HTML and such. So my take on > > this is that it shouldn''t be that hard to create a TeX > > (LaTeX/ConTex/What-Ever-TeX) file which then can be run by PdfTex. > > > > I''d be willing to participate in the "design" (read: usable layout for > > api on paper) of the paper. > > > > Count me in as well. Anyone else willing to lend a hand? I like Flurin''s > suggestion regarding RDoc -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF, as it would make auto-generation > easier. Not a TeX guru by any stretch but I''m assuming you can define a > TeX stylesheet which can be applied to an HTML file for processing into a > paper-friendly (i.e. PDF) format. I''m excited now! > > See, an hour ago I was swearing up and down that there are no PDF docs, now > I have a mission to find a solution. This is a great advertisment for Ruby... > "Use Ruby, it lowers your blood pressure!" >Perhaps Dave Thomas could offer a solution? It seems he''s done quite a bit of RDoc -> PDF within Pickaxe II. -- Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
On 4/13/05, lester <dumpingrounds-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> "Currently, HTML is the only supported format." > > It would seem to me that running the code through rdoc would get us back > to where we started, which is the API docs in browser-based layout. Or am > I missing something? >I believe what Scott was suggesting is that you should write a patch for rdoc so that HTML is no longer the only supported format. This is more of a rdoc issue then a rails issue. +1 for this feature Josh
I wasn''t proposing an RDOC -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF solution. In an ideal situation we''d have RDOC -> TeX -> PDF. (Well some may say RDOC -> PDF, but I haven''t found any PDF system that handles typesetting as wel as TeX) Anyway, I did some research on RDOC. There seems to be an XML output, but the XML output isn''t complete, it just spits out some kind of file-listing and file-description comments. If there would be some way to generate complete XML output, we could do something like: RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> TeX -> PDF (or RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> XML-FO -> PDF) I didn''t have time to look into RDOC any further, but I saw that there also was an option to specify some kind of template. Maybe that gives us a hook? Only drawback would be that the output still would be multiple files (read that somewhere on a newsgroup, although it was slightly outdated, so maybe this is fixed now) Regards, Flurin lester wrote:>> Okay, let''s get "practical" about this ;) >> >> 1. A lot of people seem to want PDF documentation, so there obviously >> is >> a need >> 2. Api''s are bound to change over time (and get bigger), so it should >> be >> automatically generated >> 3. Paper is not the same as screen, so it should be designed for >> paper. >> RDOC processes ruby code and markups the HTML and such. So my take on >> this is that it shouldn''t be that hard to create a TeX >> (LaTeX/ConTex/What-Ever-TeX) file which then can be run by PdfTex. >> >> I''d be willing to participate in the "design" (read: usable layout for >> api on paper) of the paper. >> > > Count me in as well. Anyone else willing to lend a hand? I like > Flurin''s suggestion regarding RDoc -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF, as it would > make auto-generation easier. Not a TeX guru by any stretch but I''m > assuming you can define a TeX stylesheet which can be applied to an > HTML file for processing into a paper-friendly (i.e. PDF) format. I''m > excited now! > See, an hour ago I was swearing up and down that there are no PDF > docs, now I have a mission to find a solution. This is a great > advertisment for Ruby... "Use Ruby, it lowers your blood pressure!" > > >> lester wrote: >> >>>> Hi Everyone, >>>> Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all >>>> of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in >>>> PDF >>>> format? >>>> I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >>>> browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. >>>> >>> <rant> >>> >>> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the >>> API documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the >>> third request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon >>> guys, don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of >>> the keys to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily >>> accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. >>> >>> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is >>> reaching a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed >>> documentation; I''m learning this stuff from the ground up, and I (and >>> I''m sure I''m not alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs >>> with notes to myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to >>> assume that a developer will have immediate access to a computer to >>> look at the API docs. Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper >>> docs will become outdated quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. "How >>> should it be formatted?" Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python >>> docs. "Who is gonna do it?" I will! Someone give me raw txt files >>> and I''ll toss it into some sort of intellegently laid out PDF. "So >>> why don''t you do it yourself?" No way am I going to navigate to >>> EVERY page on the api site and save as text. "Then automate it!" >>> Shut up! :) >>> >>> Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as it >>> seems I am not the only one with this issue. >>> >>> </rant> >>> >>> Lester >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Rails mailing list >>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> I wasn''t proposing an RDOC -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF solution. In an ideal > situation we''d have RDOC -> TeX -> PDF. (Well some may say RDOC -> > PDF, but I haven''t found any PDF system that handles typesetting as > wel as TeX)I assumed you had meant the former because the RDoc -> TeX functionality isn''t currently present, and so we''d have to use a process which currently exists. Sorry for the misunderstanding. RDoc -> TeX definitely would be ideal, as it would give alot of flexibility.> > Anyway, I did some research on RDOC. There seems to be an XML output, > but the XML output isn''t complete, it just spits out some kind of > file-listing and file-description comments. If there would be some way > to generate complete XML output, we could do something like: > RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> TeX -> PDF (or RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> XML-FO > -> > PDF)> I didn''t have time to look into RDOC any further, but I saw that there > also was an option to specify some kind of template. Maybe that gives > us > a hook? > Only drawback would be that the output still would be multiple files > (read that somewhere on a newsgroup, although it was slightly > outdated, > so maybe this is fixed now)I did notice the template you spoke of too while perusing the RDoc site (at work right now so I cant spend too much time on it). I''ll look into it later and see if its something worth pursuing. RDoc gurus, are you familiar with the templating system we are talking about? If so, is this something that would ease an RDoc -> PDF conversion? yonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
I''d very much like to see a PDF option for RDOC. I''ve done some stuff with TeX, XML/XSLT and XSL:FO in the past, and i''m willing to contribute. I''d vote for TeX as the way to go here (XSL:FO is just so, like, yeah, bloated...). With TeX it should pose no problem to generate a wrapper file that includes all the bits and peaces generated by RDOC and make a nice self-contained PDF. Thomas Am 13.04.2005 um 23:26 schrieb Flurin Egger:> I wasn''t proposing an RDOC -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF solution. In an ideal > situation we''d have RDOC -> TeX -> PDF. (Well some may say RDOC -> > PDF, but I haven''t found any PDF system that handles typesetting as > wel as TeX) > > Anyway, I did some research on RDOC. There seems to be an XML output, > but the XML output isn''t complete, it just spits out some kind of > file-listing and file-description comments. If there would be some way > to generate complete XML output, we could do something like: > RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> TeX -> PDF (or RDOC -> XML -> XSLT -> XML-FO > -> PDF) > > I didn''t have time to look into RDOC any further, but I saw that there > also was an option to specify some kind of template. Maybe that gives > us a hook? > Only drawback would be that the output still would be multiple files > (read that somewhere on a newsgroup, although it was slightly > outdated, so maybe this is fixed now) > > Regards, > Flurin > > lester wrote: > >>> Okay, let''s get "practical" about this ;) >>> >>> 1. A lot of people seem to want PDF documentation, so there obviously >>> is >>> a need >>> 2. Api''s are bound to change over time (and get bigger), so it should >>> be >>> automatically generated >>> 3. Paper is not the same as screen, so it should be designed for >>> paper. >>> RDOC processes ruby code and markups the HTML and such. So my take >>> on >>> this is that it shouldn''t be that hard to create a TeX >>> (LaTeX/ConTex/What-Ever-TeX) file which then can be run by PdfTex. >>> >>> I''d be willing to participate in the "design" (read: usable layout >>> for >>> api on paper) of the paper. >>> >> >> Count me in as well. Anyone else willing to lend a hand? I like >> Flurin''s suggestion regarding RDoc -> HTML -> TeX -> PDF, as it would >> make auto-generation easier. Not a TeX guru by any stretch but I''m >> assuming you can define a TeX stylesheet which can be applied to an >> HTML file for processing into a paper-friendly (i.e. PDF) format. >> I''m excited now! See, an hour ago I was swearing up and down that >> there are no PDF docs, now I have a mission to find a solution. This >> is a great advertisment for Ruby... "Use Ruby, it lowers your blood >> pressure!" >> >> >>> lester wrote: >>> >>>>> Hi Everyone, >>>>> Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read >>>>> all >>>>> of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in >>>>> PDF >>>>> format? >>>>> I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >>>>> browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. >>>>> >>>> <rant> >>>> >>>> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the >>>> API documentation is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the >>>> third request in as many days with not one helpful pointer. C''mon >>>> guys, don''t we know that easily accessible documentation is one of >>>> the keys to a sucessful developer community? And by ''easily >>>> accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. >>>> >>>> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is >>>> reaching a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed >>>> documentation; I''m learning this stuff from the ground up, and I >>>> (and >>>> I''m sure I''m not alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the docs >>>> with notes to myself for future reference. It is not reasonable to >>>> assume that a developer will have immediate access to a computer to >>>> look at the API docs. Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper >>>> docs will become outdated quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. >>>> "How >>>> should it be formatted?" Meh, just copy it from the PHP or Python >>>> docs. "Who is gonna do it?" I will! Someone give me raw txt files >>>> and I''ll toss it into some sort of intellegently laid out PDF. "So >>>> why don''t you do it yourself?" No way am I going to navigate to >>>> EVERY page on the api site and save as text. "Then automate it!" >>>> Shut up! :) >>>> >>>> Again, apologies to all, I just wanted to get this on the table as >>>> it >>>> seems I am not the only one with this issue. >>>> >>>> </rant> >>>> >>>> Lester >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Rails mailing list >>>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >>>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >>> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails >
> I''d very much like to see a PDF option for RDOC. > > I''ve done some stuff with TeX, XML/XSLT and XSL:FO in the past, and > i''m willing to contribute. > > I''d vote for TeX as the way to go here (XSL:FO is just so, like, yeah, > bloated...). > > With TeX it should pose no problem to generate a wrapper file that > includes all the bits > and peaces generated by RDOC and make a nice self-contained PDF.Its becoming clear to me through the course of this discussion that RDoc -> TeX is the way to go. In my wild rant about the lack of PDF docs I was looking for a right-NOW-get-the-job-done-but-be-hacky-about-it solution, but it''s apparent that adding functionality to the existing framework makes more sense. Plus, you get the added benefit of being able to PDF-ize your own source code for when idiots like me start screaming for printed API docs :) I''m a noob, but willing to help out if this is the direction it''s going in.
On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 5:56:13 AM, lester wrote:> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the API documentation > is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third request in as many days > with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, don''t we know that easily accessible > documentation is one of the keys to a sucessful developer community? And > by ''easily accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames.Sorry, must dissent. In the web browser with a few frames I can always find what I''m after, usually by a text search in the method pane. I''d rather that than text searching a large PDF document. Also, the ability to view source (selectively) in the online docs is killer - sometimes it''s the only doc there is.> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is reaching a > maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation; I''m learning > this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure I''m not alone in this) > find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to myself for future reference.You suggest below that you''re happy to print the docs every time there''s sufficient change. What will become of your annotations then? I reckon it''s not too hard to just write your annotations in a separate notebook.> It is not reasonable to assume that a developer will have immediate access > to a computer to look at the API docs.Doesn''t sound all that unreasonable to me, but I guess if you want to read it in bed, that''s your right :)> Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become outdated quickly." > Don''t care, paper is cheap.Expensive to the environment, in my unsubstantiated opinion. (Other rebuttals elided.) I ain''t meaning to dissuade you or anyone else from wanting the docs in other formats. And it''s good that you know now what''s involved in getting PDF docs. If you can create them, more power to you! (Just please find some way to selectively view the source in PDF :) Cheers, Gavin
Okay, I took some time to take a look at the rdoc source. There are 2 things we have to do, or 3 things we can do :) We need to create a new generator, let''s say TeXGenerator and then we need to create a TeX template, so we can run all of it through RDOC. Alternatively we can just create a TeXGenerator and leave out the template stuff (drawback here is that all of the TeX "code" must be in the Generator, not a very elegant sollution imho) Regards, Flurin Gavin Sinclair wrote:>On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 5:56:13 AM, lester wrote: > > > >>This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the API documentation >>is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third request in as many days >>with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, don''t we know that easily accessible >>documentation is one of the keys to a sucessful developer community? And >>by ''easily accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine million frames. >> >> > >Sorry, must dissent. In the web browser with a few frames I can >always find what I''m after, usually by a text search in the method >pane. I''d rather that than text searching a large PDF document. > >Also, the ability to view source (selectively) in the online docs is >killer - sometimes it''s the only doc there is. > > > >>Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is reaching a >>maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation; I''m learning >>this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure I''m not alone in this) >>find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to myself for future reference. >> >> > >You suggest below that you''re happy to print the docs every time >there''s sufficient change. What will become of your annotations then? >I reckon it''s not too hard to just write your annotations in a >separate notebook. > > > >>It is not reasonable to assume that a developer will have immediate access >>to a computer to look at the API docs. >> >> > >Doesn''t sound all that unreasonable to me, but I guess if you want to >read it in bed, that''s your right :) > > > >>Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become outdated quickly." >>Don''t care, paper is cheap. >> >> > >Expensive to the environment, in my unsubstantiated opinion. > >(Other rebuttals elided.) > >I ain''t meaning to dissuade you or anyone else from wanting the docs >in other formats. And it''s good that you know now what''s involved in >getting PDF docs. If you can create them, more power to you! > >(Just please find some way to selectively view the source in PDF :) > >Cheers, >Gavin > > >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > >
> Okay, I took some time to take a look at the rdoc source. There are 2 > things we have to do, or 3 things we can do :) > > We need to create a new generator, let''s say TeXGenerator and then we > need to create a TeX template, so we can run all of it through RDOC. > Alternatively we can just create a TeXGenerator and leave out the > template stuff (drawback here is that all of the TeX "code" must be in > the Generator, not a very elegant sollution imho) >I like the first idea, TeXGenerator+template, because it seems like it would modularize the process a bit better, making maintenance and feature additions easier. I''ll take some time myself to do some digging and get up to speed on the lower-level details of TeX, enough to accomplish what we are looking to do. Like I said, I am a ruby noob (same for TeX) so unfortunately I can''t just jump into coding or even an intelligent discussion of the innards. But I see this as a great learning experience for me. I was looking for a nice project to sink my teeth into to learn this framework... I think I found it!> Regards, > Flurin > Gavin Sinclair wrote: > >> On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 5:56:13 AM, lester wrote: >> >>> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the >>> API documentation >>> is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third request in as >>> many days >>> with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, don''t we know that easily >>> accessible >>> documentation is one of the keys to a sucessful developer community? >>> And >>> by ''easily accessible'' I don''t mean on a web browser with nine >>> million frames. >> Sorry, must dissent. In the web browser with a few frames I can >> always find what I''m after, usually by a text search in the method >> pane. I''d rather that than text searching a large PDF document. >> >> Also, the ability to view source (selectively) in the online docs is >> killer - sometimes it''s the only doc there is. >> >>> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is >>> reaching a maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed >>> documentation; I''m learning this stuff from the ground up, and I >>> (and I''m sure I''m not alone in this) find it helpful to annotate the >>> docs with notes to myself for future reference. >>> >> You suggest below that you''re happy to print the docs every time >> there''s sufficient change. What will become of your annotations >> then? I reckon it''s not too hard to just write your annotations in a >> separate notebook. >> >>> It is not reasonable to assume that a developer will have immediate >>> access to a computer to look at the API docs. >>> >> Doesn''t sound all that unreasonable to me, but I guess if you want to >> read it in bed, that''s your right :) >> >>> Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become >>> outdated quickly." Don''t care, paper is cheap. >>> >> Expensive to the environment, in my unsubstantiated opinion. >> >> (Other rebuttals elided.) >> >> I ain''t meaning to dissuade you or anyone else from wanting the docs >> in other formats. And it''s good that you know now what''s involved in >> getting PDF docs. If you can create them, more power to you! >> >> (Just please find some way to selectively view the source in PDF :) >> >> Cheers, >> Gavin >> _______________________________________________ >> Rails mailing list >> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Have you guys seen this?: <http://www.htmldoc.org/> Its seems to be
maybe something we could use to convert the html produced by rdoc into
indexed pdfs?
From the web page:
HTMLDOC converts Hyper-Text Markup Language ("HTML") input files into
indexed HTML, Adobe® PostScript®, or Adobe Portable Document Format
("PDF") files.
HTMLDOC supports most HTML 3.2 elements, some HTML 4.0 elements, and
can generate title and table of contents pages. It does not currently
support stylesheets.
HTMLDOC can be used as a standalone application, in a batch document
processing environment, or as a web-based report generation
application.
No restrictions are placed upon the output produced by HTMLDOC.
HTMLDOC is available both as open source software under the terms of
the GNU General Public License and as commercial software under the
terms of a traditional commercial End-User License Agreement.
-Ezra
On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Flurin Egger wrote:
> Okay, I took some time to take a look at the rdoc source. There are 2
> things we have to do, or 3 things we can do :)
>
> We need to create a new generator, let''s say TeXGenerator and then
we
> need to create a TeX template, so we can run all of it through RDOC.
> Alternatively we can just create a TeXGenerator and leave out the
> template stuff (drawback here is that all of the TeX "code" must
be in
> the Generator, not a very elegant sollution imho)
>
> Regards,
> Flurin
>
> Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, April 14, 2005, 5:56:13 AM, lester wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is getting ridiculous. NO ONE can shed some light on why the
>>> API documentation
>>> is not available in PDF format? Gavri''s is the third
request in as
>>> many days
>>> with not one helpful pointer. C''mon guys, don''t
we know that easily
>>> accessible
>>> documentation is one of the keys to a sucessful developer
community?
>>> And
>>> by ''easily accessible'' I don''t mean on a
web browser with nine
>>> million frames.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, must dissent. In the web browser with a few frames I can
>> always find what I''m after, usually by a text search in the
method
>> pane. I''d rather that than text searching a large PDF
document.
>>
>> Also, the ability to view source (selectively) in the online docs is
>> killer - sometimes it''s the only doc there is.
>>
>>
>>> Sorry if this comes off as harsh, but my frustration level is
>>> reaching a
>>> maximum over the fact that I cannot have printed documentation;
I''m
>>> learning
>>> this stuff from the ground up, and I (and I''m sure
I''m not alone in
>>> this)
>>> find it helpful to annotate the docs with notes to myself for
future
>>> reference.
>>>
>>
>> You suggest below that you''re happy to print the docs every
time
>> there''s sufficient change. What will become of your
annotations then?
>> I reckon it''s not too hard to just write your annotations in a
>> separate notebook.
>>
>>
>>> It is not reasonable to assume that a developer will have immediate
>>> access
>>> to a computer to look at the API docs.
>>>
>>
>> Doesn''t sound all that unreasonable to me, but I guess if you
want to
>> read it in bed, that''s your right :)
>>
>>
>>> Rebuttals? "API is in constant flux, paper docs will become
>>> outdated quickly."
>>> Don''t care, paper is cheap.
>>>
>>
>> Expensive to the environment, in my unsubstantiated opinion.
>>
>> (Other rebuttals elided.)
>>
>> I ain''t meaning to dissuade you or anyone else from wanting
the docs
>> in other formats. And it''s good that you know now
what''s involved in
>> getting PDF docs. If you can create them, more power to you!
>>
>> (Just please find some way to selectively view the source in PDF :)
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails mailing list
>> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
-Ezra Zygmuntowicz
Yakima Herald-Republic
WebMaster
509-577-7732
ezra-gdxLOakOTQ9oetBuM9ipNAC/G2K4zDHf@public.gmane.org
_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
As a quick and dirty solution if all you need is something local in PDF to read, just point Acrobat at rails.rubyonrails.com with its Open Web Page feature to slurp in the whole site, maintaining links and all within the PDF. It''s a little ugly and the bookmarks are disorganized, but usable. Jim
Am Mittwoch, 13. April 2005 21.56 schrieb lester:> > Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all > > of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF > > format? > > > > I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my > > browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. > > <rant> > </rant>Not tried myself, but html2ps *.html > apidocs.ps should help in the meantime (http://user.it.uu.se/~jan/html2ps.html). Pirmin -- Pirmin Kalberer Sourcepole - Linux & Open Source Solutions http://www.sourcepole.com
Problem remains: Paper isn''t the same as screen... Paper documentation should be designed/built-up different then screen documentation. All sulutions doing RDOC -> HTML -> PDF therefore aren''t really "useable" I''m still looking into the RDOC->TeX thing, bit short on time at the moment, but hope I can try some stuff this weekend. Kind regards, Flurin Pirmin Kalberer wrote:>Am Mittwoch, 13. April 2005 21.56 schrieb lester: > > >>>Does anyone know of a way i could print the docs so I could read all >>>of it curled up on my bed like it''s a novel? :) Is it available in PDF >>>format? >>> >>>I suppose I could open each page http://api.rubyonrails.org in my >>>browser and do it, but I''m looking for an easier way. >>> >>> >><rant> >></rant> >> >> > >Not tried myself, but > html2ps *.html > apidocs.ps >should help in the meantime (http://user.it.uu.se/~jan/html2ps.html). > >Pirmin > > >
On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:55 PM, Bill Guindon wrote:>> >> See, an hour ago I was swearing up and down that there are no PDF >> docs, now >> I have a mission to find a solution. This is a great advertisment >> for Ruby... >> "Use Ruby, it lowers your blood pressure!" >> > > Perhaps Dave Thomas could offer a solution? It seems he''s done quite > a bit of RDoc -> PDF within Pickaxe II.I did a quick RDoc to Tex filter a while back. Here''s my problem: when I release stuff like this, I end up fielding dozens of e-mails, and right now I''m heads down doing the book.