Keep in mind that FAQs are going to be called on to do new things: be
hypertextable, be mini-databases, be indexed, be uniform, etc. In the
current light, this all seems like toil and trouble. But tomorrow, it
will look like a good investment. When we say FAQ today, that just has
no relation to where the concept is going to go. And a UFF is one step
in the direction of FAQ promotion.
> b) More interestingly, more people would be willing to switch if the
> new format made life _easier_ rather than _harder_. I envision
> something where I add simple formatting commands to my FAQ and in
> exchange some program automatically generates a table of contents,
> numbers the questions, marks changed content, fixes up the formatting,
> posts a nice human-readable ASCII version, and archives the
> machine-readable FAQ. With something like this, the new format would
> help FAQ maintainers, and it would be to their benefit to switch.
YES! that is EXACTLY the benefit of a UFF. Whoever gets a UFF that does
this will have a lot of converts. The time and overhead I spend just
formatting and renumbering the @#$%^&* faq would pay for itself with
this kind of tool. Imagine the ability to switch the ASCII margin size
throughout with a single tweak here or there. This is what I consider
the most basic UFF->ASCII tool.
See the beauty of a UFF? There could be standard ASCII formats that are
trivial to create after we have a standard UFF format. We could have
the Digestifier ASCII format, the Questions Like This format, the
Contents Like That format, etc. All would be neat ASCII variations. In
fact, the *reader* could pick his favorite ASCII format to `compile'
>from the UFF. (BTW, people who call the Digestifier format a `standard'
really annoy me. This is the most simplistic attempt at a FAQ
`standard' that could even be called that. It's not even a standard --
what does the newsreader do? split the messages? keep them the same?
many people don't even like what it is *intended* to do. What's the
utility of splitting a FAQ into a bunch of disconnected fragments?)
I started writing such a tool, and have some lines of C code, but
really PERL is the way to go for this kind of thing.
>4. It would be nice to see a demonstration of the benefits of using some
>standard format. Is there some WWW or xmosaic or whatever site where I
>can see the great things that can happen with a "properly" formatted FAQ?
>I would like some assurance that using a new format will actually help
>people, preferably me, and will not just slake some control-freak's lust
>for power. As it is, the searching of ASCII FAQs via WAIS meets my needs
>for looking up information, and without imposing requirements of FAQ
>writers, so I would like to see additional benefits.
There is just absolutely no doubt that a UFF would be worth its weight
in gold, if it could be achieved. It would be a tremendous boost to the
popularity of FAQs that would rival that of Gopher explosion in use.
What are `your needs'? People want hypertextable information,
searchable, indexable, organized, uniform, etc. Anyone who has not used
Xmosaic or called up T.Fine's Ohio collection of FAQs will just have no
idea what people are talking about when they say `hypertext format'. I
mean, when you can click on an FTP site reference and you are *there*,
or you click on an email address and get a *resume*, or you click on
another reference and boom you are *telnetting* to the site. All of
this would be *trivial* if there was a UFF.
>5. FAQ maintainers face a mostly thankless task and should be commended for
>their effort. I resent any comments that they don't adapt a new format at
>the drop of a hat because they are stubborn, lazy, capricious, and fear
>change. There are too many sponges on Usenet who soak up other people's
>effort and demand more, without doing anything positive themselves.
Hold on just a little longer. It won't be long before we get a
transaction server going where you can get incremental charges for
every access. And you will have a head start on all the other people
who want to get rich quick by already having a highly refined FAQ and a
great reputation, and one that supports *all* the formats that people
are paying $ for! All you whiny FAQ maintainers are going to have a
whole new attitude when you face the competition! <g>
whoever is SERIOUS about getting a UFF format together, PLEASE PLEASE
PLEASE START A MAILING LIST. Maybe JIK can hear me <g>
I would be interested in a mailing list dedicated exclusively to the
project of getting FAQs into a commercial venue, where they can
generate revenue, too.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved