} > They should consult the documentation for their system. It's not
} > really possible to write a FAQ for FAQ writers that does this justice.
} > There's too many different editors, systems, providers etc.
} I agree that they *should*, but the fact remains that they *don't*.
People get testy when others ask questions that are already in a FAQ -
we should spoon feed people with material that's already more than
adequately documented in other ways?
RTFFAQ?
RTFM! ;-)
} I don't care whether it explains every possible variation of editors and
} systems. 50-75% would be enough.
That would still require 100s of pages of FAQs. Do you know how many
DOS editors there are?
We should be assuming a minimal level of common "competence". If a
prospective FAQ author doesn't know how to use their editor, they
couldn't post anything properly in the first place, and would be unlikely
to even consider writing one.
-- Chris Lewis: _Una confibula non sat est_ Phone: Canada 613 832-0541 Latest psroff: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/psroff3.0pl17/* Latest hp2pbm: FTP://ftp.uunet.ca/distrib/chris_lewis/hp2pbm/*
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved