On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> >- Remove the "background" section
>
> I kinda like this section -- shame we can't number it 0, if
> we're getting rid of the section numbers. If you do decide to pull
> it, please keep it around so we can consider putting it back after
> we've liv
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, David Reid wrote:
> Joshua,
>
> Thanks for your summary. Have we at least agreed that we want to move to
> some sort of generated FAQ? If we have then I'll volunteer to have a look
> at some packages and post some results here. If we haven't reached that
> point yet then I'
Chris Pepper wrote:
>
> >1. Adapt my prototype to the following concerns:
> >- Add numbering in the indexes
>
> I thought Ken had removed his veto, as long as there were
> reasonably meaningful and memorable mnemonics (instead of numbers)
> for each Q.
Mnemonics or numbers. That is correct.
>
At 9:18 PM -0800 2001/03/01, Joshua Slive wrote:
Okay, after taking a few days break from this issue, here is what I am
willing to do. Anyone who has an interest in this, please let me know
which you prefer:
1. Adapt my prototype to the following concerns:
- Add numbering in the indexes
I thought
Joshua,
Thanks for your summary. Have we at least agreed that we want to move to
some sort of generated FAQ? If we have then I'll volunteer to have a look
at some packages and post some results here. If we haven't reached that
point yet then I'm +1 on #1 for the time being as it seems to have t
Okay, after taking a few days break from this issue, here is what I am
willing to do. Anyone who has an interest in this, please let me know
which you prefer:
1. Adapt my prototype to the following concerns:
- Add numbering in the indexes
- Remove the "background" section
- Think a little more ab
At 6:27 AM -0500 2001/02/23, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
Joshua Slive wrote:
4. Changed the format of the Q&A to s rather than a big
. There is no longer any numbering in the FAQ.
-1. I often refer people to specific questions by number.
Hard-code them into the if you like, but use an
for t
> > > > If we can do all this then I'll be +1 :), but presently I'm -0.5 on
the
> > > > sample you created.
> >
> > I do have a comment about your posting. The subject line on the email
that
> > led me to the sample was "prototype FAQ".
>
> Sorry if that was misleading. I certainly never meant to
On Sun, 25 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote:
> > >
> > > If we can do all this then I'll be +1 :), but presently I'm -0.5 on the
> > > sample you created.
>
> I do have a comment about your posting. The subject line on the email that
> led me to the sample wa
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote:
> >
> > If we can do all this then I'll be +1 :), but presently I'm -0.5 on the
> > sample you created.
I do have a comment about your posting. The subject line on the email that
led me to the sample was "prototype FAQ". It wasn't "hey, see what you
think
age, not discussing an actual Index. Right? Or is there
some plan for an actual index?
Janet
- Original Message -
From: "William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: prototype FAQ
>
From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2001 12:06 PM
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote:
> >
> > If we can do all this then I'll be +1 :), but presently I'm -0.5 on the
> > sample you created.
> >
>
> I assume "you" refers to "me".
>
> It's good to have more
On Sat, 24 Feb 2001, David Reid wrote:
>
> If we can do all this then I'll be +1 :), but presently I'm -0.5 on the
> sample you created.
>
I assume "you" refers to "me".
It's good to have more voices in the discussion, but it would be nice to
have a little more explanation. You commented on Ken
OK, joining late and been up all night with a couple of hours sleep since,
but
> I am totally in favour of making the FAQ easier to use -- but
> on multiple levels. Ease of use needs to be attained for:
>
> 1. Finding the right Q/A.
Agreed. This is after all what the FAQ is all about!
> 2
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I am still confused by your remarks about 'the state the 1.3
> FAQ is in;' I may have missed some messages, but I find that
> obscure. What aspect of the State of the FAQ is bad?
I'm not saying the 1.3 FAQ sucks. I'm saying two things:
1. I f
I am totally in favour of making the FAQ easier to use -- but
on multiple levels. Ease of use needs to be attained for:
1. Finding the right Q/A.
2. Treating as a monolithic document (for printing, or mailing,
or including in a tarball).
3. Referencing the right Q/A (when linking or mailing a
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Joshua Slive wrote:
> >
> > I would guess that a fair number of the FAQs that are asked on
> > usenet get asked not because people haven't bothered to look
> > at the FAQ, but rather because th
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Only if, as you say, you want to re-order the items. I do not
> regard that as a priority, personally. The FAQ has been re-ordered
> once in the last four years. This will make twice.
I can say, however, that I have wanted to reorder thing
From: "Rodent of Unusual Size" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:16 PM
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> I would guess that a fair number of the FAQs that are asked on
> usenet get asked not because people haven't bothered to look
> at the FAQ, but rather because the FAQ is so unwield
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> Re the numbering. I did this for a specific reason: If we number
> the FAQ and people start referring to the numbers, then it becomes
> very difficult in the future to do any sort of reorganization.
Only if, as you say, you want to re-order the items. I do not
regard tha
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Joshua Slive wrote:
> >
> > 4. Changed the format of the Q&A to s rather than a big
> > . There is no longer any numbering in the FAQ.
>
> -1. I often refer people to specific questions by number.
> Hard-code them into the if you like, but u
After you address other folk's points - I like the way you phrased this
placeholder - +1 with corrections Ken already observed.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Joshua Slive" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2001 12:00 AM
Subject: prototype FAQ
> T
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> Rich Bowen wrote:
> >
> > Whatever format it's in, is there any interest in having a
> > cronjob that text-ifies it and posts it to usenet? comp.lang.perl
> > has something like this going, as do various other groups. I
> > think I have that code here somewhere. H
Rich Bowen wrote:
>
> Whatever format it's in, is there any interest in having a
> cronjob that text-ifies it and posts it to usenet? comp.lang.perl
> has something like this going, as do various other groups. I
> think I have that code here somewhere. Having the document
> multi-page will complic
Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
> > I believe we should just give up on the idea of having a
> > plain-text FAQ to post to usenet. That created a bunch of
> > complication and nobody every actually did it anyway.
>
> -1. Just because it has not been done does *not* mean we
> should make it more
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> 4. Changed the format of the Q&A to s rather than a big
> . There is no longer any numbering in the FAQ.
-1. I often refer people to specific questions by number.
Hard-code them into the if you like, but use an
for the index. And continue to have a link for a single m
26 matches
Mail list logo
