On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote: > > 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.
That's an interesting twist on this, I don't necessarily disagree. However, that is VERY far from what we currently have. For example, the part of the FAQ that I was planning to leave in was mostly the first section, discussing Apache project background. This surely does not meet your "showstopper" criteria. Where would this type of information go under your scheme? What about questions like "What is a regular expression?" Should they all be split off into different files? The criteria that I was thinking of, was more along the lines of a) A question that is "frequently asked", either in the bug database, or user support forums. b) Something that cannot be sufficiently documented elsewere. This criteria results in a very different set of questions. > > 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. > That part I certainly agree with. We now have many more "background" docs that could easily incorporate these focused types of questions. Joshua.
