On Jan 17, 2008, at 08:34 AM, Jim Weirich wrote: > On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote: >> Jim, you should give webby a try too : http://webby.rubyforge.org/ > > Sigh. Everytime I mention this, someone suggests a DIFFERENT static > website generator. Who would have thought there was so much > competition in this area. > > So, why webby over nanoc and webgen?
While we're sighing over dueling static website generators, why not use rdoc*? This way users can browse documentation with `gem server` even when they don't have the internet. At the very least, it would be nice if we could re-use whatever other static files that are generated for documentation in RDoc. * Yes, there are various problems with RDoc, but this is a forward- looking statement, as I have partially addressed that nasty frames issue, and am working my way up towards doing something about Gem::Specification's undocumented methods. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
