From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5897A20A17; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:01:05 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 15:01:05 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Daniel Ferreira Cc: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org, olddoc-public@80x24.org Subject: Re: [ANN] olddoc 1.4.0 - old-fashioned RDoc generator Message-ID: <20170123150105.GA7761@starla> References: <20170122215451.GA6054@dcvr> <20170123125038.GA490@starla> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: Daniel Ferreira wrote: > Hi Eric, > > I've tried now with `$ rdoc -f oldweb` and I can confirm is now very > different from darkfish but the removal of the style from darkfish still > exists as a side effect when trying to use the standard generator. > No code highlight and different letter type. I'm not sure what you mean, can you point out the HTML source differences? Keep in mind I only use terminal browsers like lynx and w3m for browsing; so I only see one font and never let other people decide on what colors show up on my screen. Perhaps some files did not get regenerated properly? > > Thanks, > > Daniel > > P.S. > > I would not use oldweb and rather use olddoc. > If you plan other templates why not add it as a suffix? It's just a name; "web" means the documentation is tied to the web; "doc" is more generic (could cover manpages, etc). It's a more descriptive name than "darkfish", anyhow... I'm not sure what you mean by suffix, though. And there's no plan to add other templates, just a "maybe".