I agree that this is a truly great thing that the OSU server does and
for three of my FAQs, which are in digest format, I almost always
recommend that people look at the OSU version rather than the Utrecht
or Oxford version. If you take a look at my "Writing Samples Page"
at http://www.jazzie.com/ii/samples.html, you'll see that I list the
OSU server first for the first three FAQs that I have listed there.
*BUT* according to the tech notes section of the OSU server, only 479
postings out of 3163 postings, or 15%, get burst into multi-part
hypertext docs. For the 85% of periodic postings that are presented
as single-part hypertext docs, I think Utrecht and Oxford are clearly
better for all the reasons I list on my faqs.html page.
> Your
> page currently does a good job of describing the capabilities, but
> falls down on describing the presentations. My recommendation is to
> improve the latter and quit trying to judge one archive over another.
Thank you for the feedback. I will try to improve the description of
the presentations. Right now, I have tried to present the features
without saying "this is positive or this negative." For example I
simply say that OSU presents the auxiliary headers but none of the
real headers. In my Web page, I've tried not to be too judgemental
about the archives - the main way that my bias comes through (and I
realize that it is fairly obvious) is by listing them in the order
Utrecht, Oxford, OSU.
Please continue to send me feedback - I'd like to clean it up quite a
bit before it appears at Yahoo.
Thanks much,
Nancy
Infinite Ink
Primary: http://www.jazzie.com/ii/
Mirror: http://www.best.com/~ii/
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved