Hi, concerning the suggestion Hans has made, I'd like to add some comments:
We have to analyse the questions asked on the list. In my opinion it does not make sens just to copy the question and the correct answer and make a digest. This would not do any good, because we then just have a mere copy of the mailinglist (stripped down to the essentials, indeed) More important is to "rate" the questions: 1) is it a question to wich the answer can be found in the manual? Then there is already a documentation for it and we do not need to answer it again. 2) is it a question that has not yet been documented? Say for example "how can I draw a line below the headline?". (I actually do not know if this is in the manual). In this case, we (Hans :-> ) should see this as an opportunity to add a few lines to the manual, so the next time this questions will not be asked again. 3) a questions that is related to the installation. For example the texhash or mktexlsr thing. Or the cont-sys.ori/cont-sys.tex stuff. I think these are worth being documented in some extra document. 4) bug reports. We do not need to collect them, since one hour later 96% of them are already fixed. Just search the archive if you have some trouble. 5) Questions regarding fonts/encodings. Yuck. I have no clue what to do with them. There is really something that has to be done. I know that there is are docs. But there are a many questions on the list concerning this subject. 6) request for improvements. They are probably documented in Hans' privat todo list... I there a need to collect them? I think yes. 7) Questions like "How can this feature xyz (just think of gb's indefinate long page that got cut off after each chapter) be achieved? These questions are often very esoteric. But imho they are worth being collected. So what is my conclusion? Ignore some questions, improve the documentation where necessary, collect some stuff for an extra doc. We do not need an faq. Viele Gr��e, Patrick Gundlach
