On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Xavier Noria <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This is interesting. A while ago I was asking exactly the opposite: to >> replace api.rubyonrails.org by the version generated with "rake doc:rails". >> >> The reason is that it is currently very hard to point someone to some >> specific bit of the API since it uses frames. >> >> Another disadvantage of using frames is that it is not cache-friendly. I >> tried o F5/Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5 in my Chrome browser to get the updated version >> of the Rails api but it didn't updated the frame page. >> >> Only the index itself was updated. >> >> I don't think api.rubyonrails.org should use frames. Now you want to >> introduce the same problems to the version generated with "rake doc:rails"? >> Please, don't do that. > > > Regardless of the points you personally don't like about the current API, > the Rails documentation should ideally be consistent in those places where > it has control. > > It is OK that the gem installer uses Darkfish, it is OK that some websites > use YARD or their own generators, but doc:rails should match > api.rubyonrails.org in my opinion whatever their content is. > > It is very likely that for Rails 4 we have a different generator though.
Any ideas what will be used for R4? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
