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. -- 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.
