Steve Summit wrote:
> Tom Neff wrote:
> > In my experience the only thing more exasperating than extended
> > debates on an actual relevant subject (like 'how should a FAQ be
> > formatted' on a FAQ maintainer's list) is content-free
> > META-postings devoted to describing, deprecating, or trivializing
> > the topics of others. In particular, I do not see how the list's
> > purpose is served by Denis's long and somewhat supercilious Q:A:
> > "summary."
>
> Oh, I don't know -- I thought it was well done, and no more
> supercilious than it ought to be. (It is, after all, ironic that
> a mailing list for FAQ list maintainers should need its own FAQ
> list, although it's been obvious since nearly the list's
> inception that it could definitely use one.)
If FAQ-Maintainers does deserve a FAQ (which I agree it does) that "summary"
would not qualify. It is possible that by ignoring it and continuing the
inquiry over FAQ formats, we may arrive at a real (multiview) answer to the
question. Later this week, I'll take a stab at writing one up,
incorporating the various viewpoints.
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved