Some of what you say makes some sense, Eric. I won't argue that Web access
through some sort of browser will become universal. However, new
technologies don't always eradicate the old. Just look at how many Apple
II's, non-super Nintendo's, and IBM mainframes are still in operation. :)
While many have Web access now (either through servers dialed into via
terminal emulation, SLIP/PPP, or direct access), I don't see it replacing
existing mechanisms, but rather augmenting them. The problems the Web
faces even now are:
1. Pages are difficult to create. HTML is NOT an easy-to-understand
language at first. HTML+, currently under discussion, will both simplify
and complexify, to varying degrees, the whole thing.
2. Pages are difficult to serve. Not everybody has access to an HTTP
server, and some access providers will be hesitant, probably for security
reasons and/or system load (including disk space) concerns, to provide such
a server.
3. Pages are difficult to convert back to text. With the advent of
commercial access providers, more people who don't have access to the UNIX
command line or lynx are on the net. That, in itself, will start to force
a change in the entire system. It will also mean that saving a Web page as
text won't be as easy as a lynx -dump, especially for those of us without
command lines. :)
4. Pages take time to load. This again involves the unwashed public
talking to their access providers via modem. Quite often an overloaded
server will turn Web access into a loitering pain, as we wait for all the
images to load. I've almost gone to sleep a few times with a image-heavy
page loading up from a burdened server.
5. People aren't eager to change. The FAQ mechanisms are in place, and
there's nothing inherently wrong with them (IMHO, "new & improved" doesn't
necessarily invalidate the "old & robust"). Why SHOULD we change?
Popularity alone isn't enough; people not only have to have the New Toy,
but they also need to be convinced why their Old Toy is worth abandoning.
6. Internet access isn't uniform. Those with dial-in SLIP or PPP access
probably have some form of Web browser (NCSA Mosaic, Netscape, MacWeb, et
al). Those with dial-in terminal access probably have lynx or equivalent
on their host system. Those with more "traditional" access methods may or
may not have a browser available to them, but I won't argue that more and
more of them will as time goes on. But what about those who read
newsgroups via BBSes? The Internet access, for them, is invisible. They
don't have Web access, and probably never will through that mechanism.
Many of them would be too intimidated to get access on their own ... and
that's assuming they've got a provider they can reach with a local phone
number. What about them? (Thanks to Graham Stoney for making me think of
this.)
As for your questions...
> 1. When should I convert to WWW? (not "Should I" but "When should I")
Assuming one should (I would argue that, based on the above), I would say
as soon as you can make BOTH forms available quickly & easily. That would
involve finding a server, converting the documents, and being able to
easily maintain both forms (while the mechanisms are in place, use them).
> 2. How long after conversion should I maintain a parallel FAQ form?
For as long as rtfm & news.answers exists.
> 3. How, in a WWW universe, can I recapture the useful properties
> of the FAQ format, distribution modes, and archiving?
Assuming we trash the old in favor of the new, I'd guess rtfm & the mirrors
would become HTTP servers instead of mere ftp servers. Everything would be
archived there, & people could point their browsers to www.rtfm.mit.edu (or
whatever). Distribution would be a non sequitur, except for maintaining
local FAQ's (in which case the ftp server would continue, & mirror/local
sites would be responsible for pulling down new stuff on demand, or perhaps
as the result of a period faq-maintainers-announce message).
> 4. What, if anything, is the function of rtfm and worthies like
> jik and tale in a world where the "rendezvous database" is
> mostly pointers to WWW documents?
See above.
But, again, I disagree that WWW necessarily invalidates the existing system.
>> The WWW is not going to replace Usenet, but it will affect its growth and
>> evolution.
>
>Pardon. I'm not arguing that WWW obsolesces USENET; that claim would obviously
>be wrong. I'm claiming that WWW obsolesces the FAQ format for almost all
>purposes, with a limited exception for periodic postings that are clearly
>focused on a particular newsgroup (as opposed to a newsgroup's informational
>topic, the usual case).
How about providing an example here? I don't see the distinction between
an FAQ that's "clearly focused on a particular newsgroup" vs. one that's "a
newsgroup's informational topic." Are you distinguishing between, say, an
FAQ about Macintosh programming (for the comp.sys.mac.programmer.*
hierarchy), and an FAQ about group protocol? In that case, I can see
better where you're coming from, but I still feel that the existing system
is necessary, since news & the Web are still as disjoint as anything else
on the net. :) The FAQ's we're talking about here come from netnews;
people with netnews access should have priority in getting it as easily as
they can. (And let's not assume that every program out there will have a
Web tap in it. That I don't see happening ... you don't see an ftp program
that can also serve as a news reader, do you?)
Joe
--
========================================================================
Joe Sewell * What's the point in being * Internet: jsewell@iu.net
* grown up if you can't act * CIS: 74136,360
Is reality merely* childish? * AOL: JoeS10
virtual fantasy? * * Fidonet: 1:374/328.7
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved