Some feedback on the website.

[Vladimir Panteleev via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 19 December 2015 at 10:54:36 UTC, Jacob Carlborg 
wrote:
> On 2015-12-18 14:15, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> As I said: a growing number of people able and willing to 
>> maintain and
>> improve it. -- Andrei
>
> I'm not sure if there's some miscommunications here.
>
> But more contributors will not magically help. There most be a 
> reason for why Ddox is not the default documentation. Some 
> features that are missing, some parts that are not good enough 
> or similar. There needs to be a list of criteria for when Ddox 
> can be made default. The contributors can work on these tasks 
> that will improve Ddox which will eventually lead to making 
> Ddox default.
>
> I'm asking for specifics. If nobody has the answer for this we 
> don't know why Ddox is not good enough. And if we don't know 
> that we can't really know that it's not good enough. And if 
> that's the case it could be made the default right now.

There is no definitive answer for when something is "good 
enough", but to get you started:

https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/ddox/issues

Note that many of these are essentially DMD JSON output 
bugs/limitations.