In <199507091655.JAA14573@isla.west.ora.com>, "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@ora.com>
wrote:
> ... various previous messages), but it now sounds like there's
> also a need to define some standards for FAQ creation and
> so on that could be shepherded through the IETF etc.
I too have just pick this thread up and would like to suggest that anything
that *simplifies* the present system is worthwhile. There are lots of
unnecessary words describing what to do to write the FAQ, getting it approved
and getting it archived.
I thought it would be obvious to anyone that the long delays in approvals is
indicative that the system needs overhaul. If the essential feature of the
approval procedure is to automate archival by rtfm.mit.edu, surely it could
be much more simply stated. Keep this at least notionally distinct from
writing the FAQ themselves and their features.
Perhaps its about time that someone put together an informational RFC
bringing options together for further development of Tim's ideas. Maybe this
will suggest to us a suitable way to develop this idea, given the legacies
involved.
The reason I suggest this is because for a part of my working life, I worked
for the Australian federal government and was involved in a project that
developed perhaps one of the most convoluted pieces of English ever written
for public consumption : ( I understand bureaucracy and legalese mentality.
I guess I am advocating that it must be time to refresh the approach to the
FAQ and its accessibility and what place better to start than this group.
Robert
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved