[Vit-discuss] lang/doc split
blaumag at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 09:03:47 EST 2005
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:56:26 -0500, Todd Grimason <todd at slack.net> wrote:
> * 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.
> 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).
In my opinion, there can be many tutorials, user guides, FAQs,
"Getting started in Ruby by Joe Doe", written in lots of different
languages, and all of them can coexist at ruby-doc.org. But there
should be (again, in my opinion) one and only one reference and one
and only one intro integrated into the ruby-lang.org website. A "Learn
more..." link from the reference or the intro pointing to ruby-doc.org
About internationalization, maybe it can be progressive, starting with
just the "Intro" being translated into as many languages as we know. I
can take care of the Spanish.
More information about the vit-discuss