Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?

Eric S. Raymond (esr@locke.ccil.org)
Fri, 9 Dec 1994 10:17:49 -0500 (EST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Tom Lane: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"
Previous message: John Lock: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do n"
In reply to: Peter J. Kappesser: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"
Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"

> How about "See-Also:", "Related-Article:" or "More-Information:"?
> Works for encyclopedias... and new users would probably be more familiar
> with such phrases, instead of wondering what a "pointer" is.

I don't think any of these is quite right; we want a phrase that indicates a
pointer *from* a reference *to* a primary definition or source, but these
(except maybe the third) read like pointers in the opposite direction.

However, I think your general point is excellent. If there is a formula we
can borrow from dictionary or encyclopedia practice, we should use it.

Skeptics, take note: we are moving from generalities towards at least one
eminently workable proposal for FAQ-to-Web crosslinks.

-- 
					Eric S. Raymond <esr@locke.ccil.org>
					WWW: //www.thyrsus.com/~esr/home.html

Next message: Tom Lane: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"
Previous message: John Lock: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do n"
In reply to: Peter J. Kappesser: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"
Next in thread: Graham Stoney: "Re: The FAQ system approaches obsolescence. What do we do now?"

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