> How would you like to see the FAQs formatted that are in one of the digest
> formats ? Should they be split up as was done at Ohio State or as a single
> file as I currently have ? Is splitting up the files into section pages
> valuable ? As in more pleasant to read ? Or is it not worth the effort ?
Count me as a strong vote for splitting FAQs into one-HTML-page-per-section
when you can identify sections. Over a slow link, that makes a huge
difference in ease of reading.
You could do worse than to just steal Tom Fine's formatting methods
whole-hog. I know I tuned my FAQ to format reasonably well in the OSU
archive, and I bet others did too.
A really minor suggestion: for the toplevel page of multi-part FAQs, it'd
be nice to try to provide some additional info about what's in each part.
For example, on the front page for my FAQ you just have:
jpeg-faq/part1
Subject: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
Maintainer: tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane)
jpeg-faq/part2
Subject: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 2/2
Maintainer: tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane)
which tells nothing about which part has what. In my case, adding the
Summary: lines from the article headers would help the reader a great deal:
jpeg-faq/part1
Subject: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 1/2
Summary: General questions and answers about JPEG
Maintainer: tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane)
jpeg-faq/part2
Subject: JPEG image compression FAQ, part 2/2
Summary: System-specific hints and program recommendations for JPEG images
Maintainer: tgl@netcom.com (Tom Lane)
I don't know if other FAQ authors are using Summary: in a comparable way,
though, so this might not be much help for other FAQs. If someone wanted
to propose an auxiliary header to perform this function, I'd go along.
regards, tom lane
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved