[Vit-discuss] lang/doc split

Todd Grimason todd at slack.net
Thu Feb 24 00:56:26 EST 2005


* Ben Giddings [2005-02-23 23:29]:

> If the documentation is on ruby-lang.org, that 
> makes it clear that it's official.  If there's a link from 
> ruby-lang.org, that suggests the documentation is approved, but not 
> necessarily official.

Perl kind of has the same distributed, somewhat redundant and
confusing situation as ruby, in that there's:

- perl.org # a bit random, loosly organized
- perl.com # fancy, O'Reilly-backed site
- [ + many other random "user" sites]

both of which point to search.cpan.org for docs. Perl.com though does
a nice job of breaking out sections, providing a nice overview of all
the docs available - they also note the source for each set of docs,
which at a glance all appear to be [Source: search.cpan.org]:

http://www.perl.com/pub/q/documentation

I think the docs on the main site is preferable, but perl shows if
it's done well it's perfectly usable. It would be nice if there was
*some* consistency between lang and docs, even just the main color
used like between perl.com and cpan.org ("perl blue", originally from
the camel book I'd guess). 


-- 

______________________________
toddgrimason*todd-AT-slack.net




More information about the vit-discuss mailing list