Re: <FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Richard Cornford wrote:
<snip>
> The problem is that complete elaborate, technically perfect
> articles are expected from one contributor.

Contributions don't necessarily have to take the form of articles. One
thing that would be useful would be proposals for the exact wording of
quick answers (rather than just calls for them to exist). Unfortunately
that is a long way from being an easy task itself, as the 'question' has
to obviously relate to something that is frequently asked and the answer
has to be short, precise, accurate and near comprehensive. It is
actually easier to write a page on most subjects that attempt to boil
them down to a quick answer.

> Who will take the time for that?

Well, I will take the time to do it eventually. This last year time has
been a problem, partly because I have been in charge of all the
client-side work an a somewhat ambitions web application but mostly
because my Father has been dying from terminal cancer and his desire to
spend as much time as possible with his family was difficult (even
unreasonable) to decline.

Though there is still the problem that I am not really qualified to
write on some aspects of the language. Regular expressions being a case
in point. The FAQ really needs expanding in the area of regular
expressions, they are the subject of no less than 10% of ECMA 262. But
as time goes by I am finding myself with ever less reason to be using
regular expressions. It means that for me to write the needed material
will take a great deal of research on my part, which is not actually a
bad thing but will take time.

> I'd rather think of a FAQ as a collection of solutions
> to known problems a majority of active posters can agree
> to, mainly short, if possible.

That is certainly the ideal.

> A FAQ (list) should precise, but not too long and too
> detailed in itself. Links to detailed explanations are
> OK. But what would you think if it takes less time
> posting a FAQ to the newsgroup and probably get it
> answered than reading the FAQ list and finding the
> answer there? Would you not rather post the FAQ?

I almost didn't get that. You mean a questioner posts the question
because it takes too long to look through the FAQ to find the answer.
Well there is the proposal that everyone should read all of a technical
group's FAQ before even starting to post to the group, but as a newcomer
finds that out by reading the FAQ there is an obvious paradox in that.

>> And we are not even restricted to whole articles, there
>> is the miscellaneous tips and tricks page, where any well
>> explained specific technique might be presented, but no
>> contributions there either.
>
> What about postings like <1722634.4r3MeLGxf7@PointedEars.de>?
> Are they not worthy to be considered or what is the matter?

That article is mostly a list of suggested alternatives for broken links
and omissions that should be considered for inclusion. As such it is
(and similar posts) useful, and I will be making changes with a
consideration of that article. Though as far as the JavaScript 1.3
documentation goes I currently favour linking to the versions that Sun
have published. Partly because the 'temp' in devedge-temp.mozilla.org
does not inspire confidence that those links will be long lasting.

As it happens I have taken this week off work with the intention of
getting a FAQ update done and uploaded to Jim's server by the end of the
week.

<snip>
>> ... is also likely to yield nothing, only in the latter
>> case it requires a constant effort to achieve that.
>
> True, because the initial condition is wrong :)

Probably more 'not ideal' that actually wrong.

Richard.
Received on Mon Nov 21 03:16:00 2005