Dr John Stockton wrote:
[...]
We cannot expect new readers, especially those entering via Web pages,
to know of the FAQ without a regular posting of something with a
suitable Subject, whether it be a FAQ or a FAQ pointer - and the Subject
must be such as they will understand ("Quick Answers" is OK; IMHO "META"
is not).
As far as I know, the existing technical content is correct; but the FAQ
could IMHO be improved by re-wording here and there. I don't know how
many <FAQENTRYitem s remain outstanding.
I think maintenance is one of the major challenges to guarantee a FAQ's
quality. One should ideally use some kind of system that constantly
reminds of the FAQ's content. Personally I like the idea of
comp.lang.perl. misc. An automated program posts one FAQ-entry a day to
the NG. If someone has a comment on that, it might be considered to add
it to, or rewrite, the FAQ entry in question. I think it's a great way
to keep things up-to-date (though I'm not saying that the Perl FAQ is
the ideal FAQ). Maybe
http://faq.perl.org/ could be worth exploring to
see how things work there.
Is it time for someone else, someone who (unlike me) has access to a
system which can post regularly, to take over the FAQ?
I could make such a tool, that is, if you and the regulars of this
group wish to do so. It should consist of a logic and well-thought
structure. I think the current FAQ could be an excellent start, but I'm
convinced that it could cover much more topics. The great thing is that
there is much material available already, I think it would be great to
gather the information into one general list. I think it are the
unified contributions that make a FAQ strong.
One login/password could serve to maintain the FAQ. Probably it's a
good idea that everybody would keep his own topics; we'ld need a sort
of gentlemen's agreement for that. Or I could write a system with many
passwords so everyone has only access to his own FAQ entries.
Unfortunately, I don't have too much time on my hands to actively work
on and maintain the FAQ. Though the temptation to write an entry here
or there will probably pop up anyhow :-) I could provide in the
technical background though and guarantee its correct working. I've
worked on many MySQL/CGI software projects over the past 7 years and I
cannot imagine that this relatively simple program could ever be
problematic. I have good contacts within pair Networks
(
www.pair.com/www.quickserve.com), they are one of USA's largest
non-adult hosting companies. I'm quite sure they will give free app
hosting without need to mention their name/link. If you want to make
money, we could consider to add their name/link on each automated post,
but personally I wouldn't do that.
Another thing that comes to mind is that each FAQ entry should be
rather concise, and of course to-the-point and coherent. I think it
could certainly become a useful and maybe even the "de-facto" standard
for common javascript problems.
Vanity is of humans, and I think we can use this aspect to improve the
FAQ. The author(s) of a contribution can be mentionned below each
entry. Contributors might be sensitive for that, and as long as it
serves the FAQ, I don't see any drawbacks here.
I think a first major issue would be to make a solid structure that (a)
is more-or-less complete, (b) leaves room for future extensions and (c)
is intuitive to navigate.
In the long run there are a few things to consider. Not all current
contributors will remain interested to maintain their entries. I think
that problem can be dealt with; "new" regulars will appear in CLJ and
they can be invited to take over FAQ-entries after they've proven their
qualities. Obviously, one should try to make each entry as timeless,
qualitative and complete as possible. Another point is the continuity
of the technical background. As pair Networks has a long-proven
tradition of quality hosting with many dedicated machines, I think that
this shouldn't be a problem at all. About myself: I'm in business since
1999 and I can say I've solid business for many years to come.
I'ld be happy to know what you think about this :-)
ISTM that those from smaller countries in mainland Europe, having
been taught properly, seem to write good straightforward clear English.
The issue is that non-native English speakers don't have much choice if
they want to express a software problem in a language that's not their
own. Especially in the beginning, you are forced to write as clear and
straightforward as possible, just because you don't understand the
exact finetunings and the connotations that words, sentences or
language constructions might have, while they are mostly immediately
obvious for native speakers. You can't translate Shakespeare to
Schwarzenegger-English, but you can describe a technical problem in
Terminator-language. I even think non-native English speakers have an
advantage here; they can't easily hide behind vague blah-blah or
unreadable terminology.
--
Bart
