[Vit-discuss] lang/doc split

David A. Black dblack at wobblini.net
Thu Feb 24 09:35:16 EST 2005


HI --

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Michel Martens wrote:

> 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
> will suffice.

How does that better serve the visitor than having, say, a list of
tutorials, including a direct link to the online Pickaxe?  The
architecture of any given site does not have to be determined or
constrained by any other site -- meaning, in this case, that if a
direct link to something seems desireable for visitors to Ruby's
homepage, then there should be such a link, not just a straight line
to some other page where there is such a link.

I'm actually a little surprised that this -- the fundamental
constructive principle of the Web, not to mention Gopher -- is such a
sticking point.


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack at wobblini.net


More information about the vit-discuss mailing list