Re: First Run: Standard FAQL Format

---------

Chris Lewis (clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca)
Fri, 26 Nov 1993 21:23:57 -0500

On Nov 26, 8:32, Oscar Nierstrasz wrote:
} Subject: Re: First Run: Standard FAQL Format

} Britt Klein sez:
} > For another (and here I apologize if I'm getting pompous or pushy or seem to
} > be speaking for anyone but myself) I sort of resent anyone telling me that
} > the FAQ I worked my butt off to put together and keep updated is somehow
} > not `right' and that I should be following someone else's format.
} > <shrug> Perhaps it's just me, but if they want it done differently they
} > ought to do it, not tell others how.

} I find this hard to understand. If I put a lot of effort into
} preparing a FAQ, then putting in a little extra effort that will make
} that information more easily accessible (i.e., by facilitating
} automatic conversion to other media) seems to me to be worth it.

It's actually quite easy to understand. The originator of the proposal
hasn't done his homework to understand why things are done the way
they are now, and many of us have *already* put that "little extra effort"
in to comply with the existing defacto USENET digest format and
archiver subheader format. Indeed, this is the umpteenth proposal that
would break compliance with the existing defacto USENET digest format
and archiver format. Lest you feel that breaking compliance
is a small matter, I should remind you that these formats are far
wider supported than any other more modern "gimick" - almost every news
reader, for example, supports the USENET digest format. Indeed, the
standard FAQL format as proposed would probably also break all of the automated
FAQ archivers too.

We went through something like this with Thomas Fine some time ago. Indeed,
we even went through a bit of it with *me* some years ago about digest
format.

If you want to do something useful, your best bet is to pick up
on Thomas's work with understanding the defacto digest format that
many FAQs use (perhaps simplifying it in easy to automate ways),
utilize the headers that FAQs already have to have, and come up with
a simple mechanism for hypertext tagging, and perhaps FTP software
references. Then publish it. We at least need a document to describe
the method already in use that's reasonably common.

If it's reasonable, I'll add some of it to my FAQs. I'm already compatible
with Fine's stuff. But I'm not going to break rn-style digesters and
the archivers in order to conform to a "standard" that looks so awful
and bears no relationship to current standards.

-- 
Look on the bright side - at least the PC's reached gender parity!


Chris Lewis; clewis@ferret.ocunix.on.ca; Phone: Canada 613 832-0541
Ferret list: ferret-request@ferret.ocunix.on.ca

[ Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive | Search Mail Archive | Authors | Usenet ]
[ 1993 | 1994 | 1995 | 1996 | 1997 ]

---------

faq-admin@landfield.com

© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved