>Hm, I think the other way round. When I started to write the MPEG-FAQ
>I would have been very happy to have a straight ruleset that would tell
>me, what's the best and what to prevent. I had NO interest in a personal
>outfit or something and rather liked to prevent any confusion of the
>readers of the FAQ.
Sorry, but I've got to disagree here. There is no best. Period.
Furthermore, I think it's better for the beginner to just dive in and
get something done, rather than having to search for the document that
tells how to write it. That's precisely the reason for my "FAQs about
FAQs". You would be amazed (I know I was) at how many people write to me
thanking me for the help getting started. A lot of them use the format
of my FAQ, and they send me copies just so I can see how it looks. Later
editions of their FAQs often change (evolve), but at least they got an
[easy] start.
I have thought about converting my FAQs to HTML, but to tell the truth,
I'm too lazy, I don't have the time, and I don't feel like learning HTML.
Why should I be "forced" to adhere to some standard which makes HTML
easier, when I don't intend on using it anyway? BTW - Many of the FAQs
that were based on "my" format, I've also seen in HTML, so I guess HTML
is also possible with my format.
> That specially why I would loved to have; somebody telling me how
> to set up a FAQ that is easy to convert into HTML BEFORE I started
> writing it. I had to do this step about 3 month ago and had to
> restyle the outfit of the whole FAQ :o(
It seems to me that almost any reasonable format is easily converted to
HTML. As I've said, I've seen a good number of FAQs using my format,
that were also available in HTML (including my FAQs that were converted
by others). IMHO, what's more important is making it easy to start the
FAQ. The HTML can always come later when the author is ready, or when
the FAQ has reached maturity.
>> In addition, I chose a format for my FAQs, and I stick to it. This
>> format works well for me, and I've had no complaints. If I had to use
>
>Well, but that is rather selfish, isn't it ? Would it not
>be nicer to have just some easy, working formats that wouldnt
>confuse the user ? Would it not be better for compilation,
>FAQ-archives and whatever to have formats that are analysable ?
>(is that the right word ??? analyzable ?? anyway ...)
First of all, it's not selfish at all. My intention is not to just use
my format and be damned with the rest of the others. It's just that my
format just seemed to work so naturally, so I stick with it. Secondly, I
don't see where the format that I use is confusing to the user. On the
contrary, it is straightforward and clear. Thirdly, my format probably
is analyzable.
>Yes, right, so take to new writers by the hand and lead then into
>the right direction. When I started (about 5 years ago) I didnt
>even know, that there should be questions and answers in it, I though
>its just a compilation of whatsoever information !!!
That's exactly the intention of my "FAQs about FAQs". I don't think that
the direction I take the reader is that far off of the mark.
Conventional thought is that a FAQ doesn't necessarily need Question and
Answer format. It's all a matter of personal style and preference.
Best regards,
Russ
BTW - By "my format" I don't intend to imply that I invented it. It's
just a convenient way to refer to this format.
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved