Re: Documentation roadmap?

On Aug 28, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Dave Howell wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2006, at 22:29, Mat Schaffer wrote:
>
>> Guess coloring the stdlib docs might not be a great idea then.   
>> What about some sort of easy configuration?  So the users that  
>> liked it could get it but not all users were forced.  If we can't  
>> count on server-side scripts, seems like javascript cookies would do.
>
> Server-side scripts? Cookies? Are we talking about syntax-color- 
> coding a user's locally generated HTML-based (or maybe ri-based  
> with terminal ANSI codes) RDoc-generated documentation, or color- 
> coding the documentation hosted at ruby-doc.org?
>
> The former would (should?) be a matter of picking a non-default  
> template when generating the documentation. The latter...well,  
> although I'm definitely pro-color-coding, I don't think it's a good  
> idea for the ruby-doc archives.  Colored source that uses a  
> different scheme than the one I'm used to can be worse than none at  
> all.

To be honest I was just throwing ideas out here on this thread and we  
sort of got into a debate about colorization in general.  Color  
coding in the [view source] already exists, implemented via <span>  
tags and CSS.  And only on ruby code.
I'd love to see the feature work for C code and examples in the  
documentation as well.

The javascript/server-side comment was just an attempt at a  
compromise between those who want it and those who don't.  You could  
use javascript to permit viewers of any rdoc (not just stdlib) to set  
and retain preferences about syntax colorization.

Sorry if I'm causing confusion,
Mat