Re: <FAQENTRY> 3.2 update needed

Richard Cornford wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> 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.

Why not

"Quick answer: ...
 Long Answer: ..."?

Or have a separate "Quick Answers" section which we did in
the de.comp.lang.javascript FAQ <http://dcljs.de/faq/>.
 
>> 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.

I'm really sorry if my posting was read as too demanding. Of course
everyone here has a real life. What I meant was not your but the
contributor's time. Instead of relying on one contributor and one
editor (which seems to be only you) to a specific topic, it seems more
prudent to have contributions discussed in the newsgroup to finally
achieve a wording we can agree to.

As for your father, I mourn with you. I'm glad for you that you took
the time to be with him. After all, family and friends are the most
important things in our lives.
 
> 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,

ACK

> they are the subject of no less than 10% of ECMA 262.

That would not be my criteria for selection but the overall amount of
questions regarding and problems solvable by using Regular Expressions.
After all, it's a _FAQ_ (Frequently Asked Questions) list, not a detailed
documentation on the language. Let's not forget that.

> But as time goes by I am finding myself with ever less reason to be using
> regular expressions.

Interesting, it's rather the opposite with me :)

> 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 think you confuse FAQ list and language documentation.
 
>> 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.

Yes, what I meant is that many people, which not only include laymen on a
subject, are repelled by long documents. The FAQ has been more and more
turning into an elaborate documentation of the J(ava)Script/ECMAScript
languages which is not what it should be. The documentations are already
written, the purpose of the FAQ list is to answer frequently asked all-day
questions consisely and merely point to (the chapter or section of) the
documentations, correct or extend them if they are wrong or not exhaustive
in parts.

> 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.

I cannot agree to that proposal. That everyone should read all of it
before posting is simply not what a FAQ (list) should be. Instead, it
should provide mainly a short answer to a specific question in case
that question has been asked much too often, to save regulars of the
newsgroup time reading and posting replies, to allow them to invest
that time to answer *new*, more interesting, questions and to try to
solve new problems instead.
 
>> 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.

Thanks.

> 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.

Agreed.
 
> 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.

In case you need or want support, I volunteer.
 
> <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.

The initial condition was, informally speaking, that
nobody else cares about it, which is not true.

PointedEars
Received on Mon Nov 21 03:16:13 2005