From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 8:01 PM
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Chris Pepper wrote: > > > Can we add something to the (1.3) FAQ identifying status of > > individual issues in 2.0? Ideally, I'd like to have [1.3 only] or > > [fixed in 2.0] in the TOC and inline titles, to make scanning through > > it easier for 2.0 users, but this probably shouldn't appear until 2.0 > > is released (at least at 'beta'/external level). This might also make > > it easier to build a new 2.0 FAQ, or might become irrelevant if the > > rest of the 2.0 docs are much better. > > > > What you are proposing would be nice, but I think it is pretty much > impossible to do well. > > My idea about this is that, as 2.0 starts to get used, we can resurect any > FAQs that it turns out are still relevant. (Or, better yet, fix the > documentation so that they FAQ won't be necessary.) I am hoping that > depending on the 1.3 FAQ will be a short-term thing. Otherwise, this idea > just makes things harder on users. Here's my thought on an FAQ in the first place; the FAQ should be the repository of _showstoppers_, things folks never seem to get right no matter how well they are documented. Any user will try adding a feature and removing it the dozen times it takes to get it right. Few users will pound on the config of a non-functioning piece of software. If it's a problem likely to stop them from using Apache - it belongs in an FAQ. That would include the last three items under section D for Win32 users - it just doesn't work and they don't know why. The gory details of specific modules should probably be broken out - so we end up with a mod_cgi FAQ, a mod_includes FAQ, logging FAQ etc. I'd like to see the core FAQ simplified to what keeps users from ever starting their first (or next) Apache web server.
