Fortunately, this won't happen, at least in the near future.
> ...I know many of you reading this are about
> to break a vein because you feel so laboured just to have to write
> FAQ lists that it should be in "whatever damn format I want, who
> cares if people reading it can't convert it. That's the way *I*
> want it because I'm writing it."
> Very sad.
False. I'm going to be uncharacteristically blunt here: it's
people who don't know a Good Thing when they see it, and feel
compelled to tinker with it to "improve" it, that are very sad.
The closest analogy I've come up with to the way you can get your
questions altruistically answered on Usenet, by FAQ lists in
particular, is Santa Claus. You get neat stuff totally for free,
but you don't go ragging on Santa Claus if he doesn't bring you
what you wanted, or if it's the wrong color. (Well, some kids
probably do complain about what Santa Claus does/doesn't bring
them, but they're spoiled brats.)
Some day, I'm sorry to say, there probably will be a "Standard
Usenet FAQ List Format," which, though "totally voluntary," will
be attended by legions of little pointy-headed conformists who
will make all sorts of not-so-subtle remarks about the
"uncooperative" FAQ list maintainers who resent the format which
is after all intended to promote the very needs which FAQ lists
are supposed to fill. That will be the day I stop maintaining
the comp.lang.c FAQ list, and my successor, though quite
attentive to the dotting of i's and the crossing of t's, will not
produce a list of the same quality as the one I maintain.
I understand and agree that it Would Be Nice if all FAQ lists
shared a common format. But it is simply not possible to impose
any standard format without utterly destroying the spirit which
produces FAQ lists in the first place.
Steve Summit
scs@eskimo.com
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved