Re: Style/History of FAQs


Steve Summit (
Mon, 5 May 1997 11:03:57 -0700 (PDT)

I wrote:
> Though I was being diplomatic in that review, I will say here
> that the "traditional" approach, if not Right, is certainly
> better or at least more deserving of the name "FAQ list."
> (In particular, the questions in the "contrived" form of
> FAQ list are often lacking in verisimilitude or a convincing
> feel of Frequency.)

And Joe Bernstein wrote: a bunch of stuff (which he admitted
had a certain amount of kvetchiness), which I don't have any
particular disagreement with and so won't take the list's
(or my) time by responding to in detail.

This proves, of course, that the diplomatic approach is really
the better one. My assertion that "the `traditional' approach...
is... better or at least more deserving of the name `FAQ list'"
was of course only my opinion, and should not be construed as any
kind of official policy statement. Not only that, but it's not
any condemnation of a document that doesn't fit the "traditional"
format, merely a suggestion (again, in my opinion) that "FAQ list"
might not be the best name for it.

Steve Summit