FAQ Updates
Randy Webb
talking about "not wasting time on a subject" yet he continues to do
just that but isn't updating the FAQ. It has been asked about before (By
John Stockton) with no reply.
When will the FAQ be updated again?
--
Randy
Chance Favors The Prepared Mind
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/
Peter Michaux
> When is the next scheduled Update of the group FAQ? I see Richard
> talking about "not wasting time on a subject" yet he continues to do
> just that but isn't updating the FAQ. It has been asked about before (By
> John Stockton) with no reply.
>
> When will the FAQ be updated again?
Who hands out the keys to the FAQ?
Randy Webb
Jim Ley AFAIK.
Jim Ley
<HikksNo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Peter Michaux said the following on 11/15/2006 6:41 PM:
>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>> When is the next scheduled Update of the group FAQ? I see Richard
>>> talking about "not wasting time on a subject" yet he continues to do
>>> just that but isn't updating the FAQ. It has been asked about before (By
>>> John Stockton) with no reply.
>>>
>>> When will the FAQ be updated again?
>>
>> Who hands out the keys to the FAQ?
>
>Jim Ley AFAIK.
Yep any "known person" * will be provided access to the machine to
update the FAQ on request from the group.
I will also support unknown persons put will not want to provide any
sort of shell access to directly update the site in that case.
The biggest problem is my site is rather sick right now, overloaded,
and the nice new machine is too noisy to turn on in the current
location, and I've not had the time to do anything about getting it
set up and installed in a colo.
Cheers,
Jim.
[*] A known person is someone with a good history of posting within
the group, and that I can google without finding anything bad on :)
Randy Webb
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 19:15:30 -0500, Randy Webb
> <HikksNo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter Michaux said the following on 11/15/2006 6:41 PM:
>>> Randy Webb wrote:
>>>> When is the next scheduled Update of the group FAQ? I see Richard
>>>> talking about "not wasting time on a subject" yet he continues to do
>>>> just that but isn't updating the FAQ. It has been asked about before (By
>>>> John Stockton) with no reply.
>>>>
>>>> When will the FAQ be updated again?
>>> Who hands out the keys to the FAQ?
>> Jim Ley AFAIK.
>
> Yep any "known person" * will be provided access to the machine to
> update the FAQ on request from the group.
Maybe someone could edit the FAQ as strictly an editor and let Richard
stay as the technical advisor/editor. I spend most of my days at my desk
at home. I had back surgery in Feb and work from home now so having time
to do it wouldn't be a problem for me. I wouldn't want to be the
answer-all technical person but prefer to leave it to a group consensus
within limits. I might get my head handed to me for the offer but what
the heck :)
<snip>
> The biggest problem is my site is rather sick right now, overloaded,
> and the nice new machine is too noisy to turn on in the current
> location, and I've not had the time to do anything about getting it
> set up and installed in a colo.
Sometime in January I am replacing my current PC with a new one. This
one is about 3 years old but could be easily set up as a server with a
static IP. Never tried running a site as busy as the FAQ site on my
cable connection but maybe in Jan I can email you and get it setup and
test it out.
> [*] A known person is someone with a good history of posting within
> the group, and that I can google without finding anything bad on :)
Oops, that rules me out <g>
Jim Ley
<HikksNo...@aol.com> wrote:
>Sometime in January I am replacing my current PC with a new one. This
>one is about 3 years old but could be easily set up as a server with a
>static IP. Never tried running a site as busy as the FAQ site on my
>cable connection but maybe in Jan I can email you and get it setup and
>test it out.
I have the machine (a nice 1U dual xeon) half set up and ready to go,
I have offers of free colo space and hosting, it's just the time to
get it all set up :)
I'm very much hopeful to find some time one day :(
Jim.
VK
poster. During the "comp.lang.javascript FAQ question" discussion
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/2aa1140c148de30b/8954de60cffe6dab>
Bart Van der Donck volunteered to restore FAQ posting and he's
showing his commitment to this extra free job since August 2006. As he
is the only person so far who did and does something (not just
wishfully discussing) - then in my strong opinion he should be the
first person to propose. Only if Bart Van der Donck doesn't want this
extra job, other candidatures could be considered.
I myself is not fully satisfied with the outcome of the linked July
discussion. As the result of two FAQ maintainers in the row "left to
stay", we are having a rather abnormal situation with
1) hosting and server access from Jim Ley
2) "keys" hidden by Richard Cornford
3) regular postings in the newsgroup by Bart Van der Donck
Someone may call it as an "extended security" but I see it as a
ridiculous situation reminding me the late Roman Empire (on the falling
apart stage :-).
This way the most important step would be to finish the transition
started at July. Whoever will be the new FAQ maintainer, all previous
FAQ maintainers has to finally step aside.
If no agreement be possible by the "triumvir members" then it is
more easy just to resign all of them and start over.
Another problem to be addressed immediately is the procedure itself of
FAQ topics add/update/remove. So far it simply doesn't work: each
<FAQENTRY> transforms into endless discussion resulting in FAQ remained
untouched. While it can be normal for many legislative bodies :-), it
is hardly acceptable for technical newsgroup. IMO the whole procedure
should be strictly defined and formalized. A variant could be:
1) Initial <FAQENTRY> post with action indicated:
<faqentry action="add">
<faqentry action="update">
<faqentry action="remove">
Each <faqentry> has to be well-formed XML fragment with indication of
title, number, <del> and <ins> parts (for update requests)
2) Initial post starts one week (seven days) discussion period
3) Initial poster either accounts the critics or not in the CFV (Call
For Votes) <FAQENTY> variant she has to post after the stage 2) is
expired. If no CFV post made then the Initial post is counted as the
CFV.
4) Within three days after that anyone can make a voting post. The
Usenet post must contain one and only one of the following vote
statements:
YES
NO
ABSTAIN
Names are required for this vote. ABSTAIN votes are not counted in the
results. The version passes the vote if there are at least 5 votes
received and at least 50% + 1 vote are YES.
Another question to resolve is FAQ versioning. It is important to keep
ability to link/refer a FAQ topic directly rather than just saying
"search for it in group FAQ". I saw somewhere posts made in c.l.j. at
different time solving this problem, but I cannot find them again right
now.
P.S. comp.lang.javascript FAQ history:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/8954de60cffe6dab>
Dr J R Stockton
17 Nov 2006 06:13:33, VK <school...@yahoo.com> writes
>I am a bit surprised that no one mentioned the name of the current FAQ
>poster.
>Bart Van der Donck volunteered to restore FAQ posting and he's
>showing his commitment to this extra free job since August 2006. As he
>is the only person so far who did and does something (not just
>wishfully discussing) - then in my strong opinion he should be the
>first person to propose. Only if Bart Van der Donck doesn't want this
>extra job, other candidatures could be considered.
Agreed; he's earned that opportunity.
>1) hosting and server access from Jim Ley
ISTM that Jim is evidently fully committed to provision of the FAQ in
principle, but in practice may usually be too busy to do all the routine
work.
>Another problem to be addressed immediately is the procedure itself of
>FAQ topics add/update/remove.
> ... ... ...
IMHO not necessary. An active FAQ maintainer should just change it to
what he thinks correct in the light of extant discussion and personal
experience, and be ready to change it again if further discussion
justifies further change. Changed sections should be manually posted
here.
>Another question to resolve is FAQ versioning.
The FAQ could be stored not just as <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/>
but as <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/20051105.html> etc. with
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/latest.html> redirecting to the latest
version and with "latest.html" set as the default for its directory.
Then the normal thing to do would be to cite
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> in general, but
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#F3-8> or
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/latest.htm#F3-8> for a specific entry
in the latest version.
Those needing to cite a specific version could use the dated name, and
the Maintainer should give a few days notice of any changing (as
distinct from just adding) of the anchor-name/text relationship.
IMHO the full FAQ should be posted to news:c.l.j at least once per
version, and by arrangement that should be cross-posted to
news:news.answers.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> Old RC FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
VK
> principle, but in practice may usually be too busy to do all the routine
> work.
I more than appreciate Jim Ley commitment he made back in 1999, but a
reliable server maintenance it is necessary to have 24-hrs access the
the server plus the minimum set of tools such as server-side scripting
(Perl / PHP), CRON access, database (at least mySQL), .htaccess etc.
This way a simple Web or FTP accesses to a folder is not enough: that
should be a separate virtual server. Otherwise the main part of
problems the maintainer will have to solve will be related with boring
technical issues rather than with the FAQ themselves.
> >Another problem to be addressed immediately is the procedure itself of
> >FAQ topics add/update/remove.
> > ... ... ...
> IMHO not necessary. An active FAQ maintainer should just change it to
> what he thinks correct in the light of extant discussion and personal
> experience, and be ready to change it again if further discussion
> justifies further change. Changed sections should be manually posted
> here.
That depends on who do you want to have: a new king or a new president
:-)
I would prefer a new president but right away to protect him from a
brute force insistence on something by the cabal members; to make him
more independent from who elected him or who's providing him the tools
for his job. IMHO seven days (or even ten) is more than enough to say
anything one has to say on the FAQ topic. But the discussion has to
lead to some final result: either final YES or final NO. Otherwise
these are wasted electrons :-)
It is also the question if every FAQ maintainer has to be considered by
its status as "absolutely all knowing person". I would see him more
than as enthusiastic administrator rather than God watching everything
from the top and taking from time to time the only possibly correct
decision. IMHO.
> >Another question to resolve is FAQ versioning.
>
> The FAQ could be stored not just as <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/>
> but as <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/20051105.html> etc. with
> <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/latest.html> redirecting to the latest
> version and with "latest.html" set as the default for its directory.
>
> Then the normal thing to do would be to cite
> <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> in general, but
> <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/#F3-8> or
> <URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/latest.htm#F3-8> for a specific entry
> in the latest version.
>
> Those needing to cite a specific version could use the dated name, and
> the Maintainer should give a few days notice of any changing (as
> distinct from just adding) of the anchor-name/text relationship.
I don't really like the idea of splitting FAQ on "latest", "normal",
"old" etc. The FAQ should be only one: *currently* suggested by c.l.j.
But I have no better ideas as of now.
Bart Van der Donck
it. I would support Randy's candidature.
Here is some information about content handling:
- At this moment, http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.xml is ASCII [*]
and not encoded in UTF8/Unicode/Big Endian. It's okay to keep it this
way.
- If a need would rise to extend the characters to ISO-8859-1, then
it's possible too, but only if the initial line of
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.xml is changed into <?xml
version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?> . index.xml should still be
saved not encoded in UTF8/Unicode/Big Endian/..., just in plain Latin.
- More than ISO-8859-1 is currently not supported, but I think it's no
problem; ISO-8859-1 should be wide enough for the FAQ. There are issues
with UTF-8 on Usenet [**], it's very complex and the logic of Perl's
XML::Parser/XML::Simple is quite bizarre regarding this matter.
My conclusion would therefore be that the ASCII or (if needed) the
ISO-8859-1 charsets should be workable.
http://www.jibbering.com/faq/index.xml can be updated like/how you
wish, add new entries, delete entries, change entries, etc. only the
basic XML structure should be kept. Also the breakdown at pos72 is
beneficial towards a pretty Usenet layout. Anyway, let me know if
you've questions and I'll be glad to assist.
--
Bart
[*] It should be mentionned that one is "always safe" with ASCII,
regardless of which future applications might ever be written with the
data. One is "mostly safe" with ISO-8859-1, but *not* always.
[**]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/b69ca7351dd6ecec/
Jim Ley
>I more than appreciate Jim Ley commitment he made back in 1999, but a
>reliable server maintenance it is necessary to have 24-hrs access the
>the server plus the minimum set of tools such as server-side scripting
>(Perl / PHP), CRON access, database (at least mySQL), .htaccess etc.
That's ludicrous, it's a static file that is edited by agreement
through usenet, you certainly do not need any database for it, it
would be madness - of course any account I give on the box can have
access to any such things.
>I don't really like the idea of splitting FAQ on "latest", "normal",
>"old" etc. The FAQ should be only one: *currently* suggested by c.l.j.
>But I have no better ideas as of now.
Every version should be available (if it's not then it was a back-up
failure from when I lost the disk, and I'll need to sort it out from
other sources if I can.
Jim.
VK
Bart Van der Donck wrote:
> Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to do
> it.
That's a pity but we understand.
> I would support Randy's candidature.
I will too then - if the the FAQ update procedure will be anyhow
formalized (see my other posts). Don't worry of me pushing for array or
inheritance "VK's nonsense" - I'm away from it for FAQ :-). But it must
be some procedure to ensure that if an issue is raised, studied and
confirmed - then ensure it will appear in FAQ.
VK
> > Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to do
> That's a pity but we understand.
> I will too then
And - in the light of Bart Van der Donck leaving the race, and to give
a choice, and just for hell of it - I decided to be Pat Buchanan in
this campain.
Hey, guys, any votes for VK?
Peter Michaux
Bad choice. Look what he stands for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
He is clearly way out of touch and didn't make a single good choice.
Didn't win either.
VK
> > And - in the light of Bart Van der Donck leaving the race, and to give
> > a choice, and just for hell of it - I decided to be Pat Buchanan in
> > this campain.
> Bad choice. Look what he stands for
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan
> He is clearly way out of touch and didn't make a single good choice.
> Didn't win either.
Right: that is the root of my joke (Mr.Webb and many American readers
surely get it right). :-) Buchanan is a "perpetual candidate"
participating in every elections w/o any chance to win. I meant to say
that with many times clinically proven VK's danger to JavaScript
programming and to the programming as such :-) I have the same chances
to get on FAQ as Buchanan to become the next US president. But as
Buchanan I see my obligation in participating, creating a concurrence
and so save the democracy :-)
Randy Webb
That describes VK almost perfectly :)
But his post was an American joke that most non-Americans (or as JRS
refers to them - Merkins) don't understand. It took me a while to
realize what a Merkin even was.
Randy Webb
> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>> Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to do
>> it.
>
> That's a pity but we understand.
>
>> I would support Randy's candidature.
>
> I will too then - if the the FAQ update procedure will be anyhow
> formalized (see my other posts).
I have never seen anything "wrong" with the FAQ Update procedure that is
in place now. The procedure is fine. The problem is a matter of the
editor having time to keep up with it.
> Don't worry of me pushing for array or inheritance "VK's nonsense" -
> I'm away from it for FAQ :-).
You can push all you want :)
> But it must be some procedure to ensure that if an issue is raised,
> studied and confirmed - then ensure it will appear in FAQ.
The only problem now is it getting into the FAQ and that is only a
matter of Richard not having time to do it.
Dr J R Stockton
17 Nov 2006 16:02:34, VK <school...@yahoo.com> writes
>> ISTM that Jim is evidently fully committed to provision of the FAQ in
>> principle, but in practice may usually be too busy to do all the routine
>> work.
>
>I more than appreciate Jim Ley commitment he made back in 1999, but a
>reliable server maintenance it is necessary to have 24-hrs access the
>the server plus the minimum set of tools such as server-side scripting
>(Perl / PHP), CRON access, database (at least mySQL), .htaccess etc.
>This way a simple Web or FTP accesses to a folder is not enough: that
>should be a separate virtual server. Otherwise the main part of
>problems the maintainer will have to solve will be related with boring
>technical issues rather than with the FAQ themselves.
Apart from the first clause, wholly untrue.
If the FAQ is served from a reliable ISP, the author has nothing to do
with server maintenance. And I can edit my Web site, if necessary, from
any machine with two-way FTP and a text editor.
>I don't really like the idea of splitting FAQ on "latest", "normal",
>"old" etc. The FAQ should be only one: *currently* suggested by c.l.j.
>But I have no better ideas as of now.
It can be useful for the history to be available, if only so that old
links still work.
It could be useful to have a mechanism for handling new material while
the True Maintainer is, for example, on holiday. For example, if during
the past year there had arisen a sudden and urgent need for a change,
then no doubt Jim-the-Omnipotent had the capability of appending a new
chunk without waiting for Richard.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.
Dr J R Stockton
17:17:10, Randy Webb <HikksNo...@aol.com> writes
>VK said the following on 11/18/2006 10:36 AM:
>> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>>> Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to do
>>> it.
>> That's a pity but we understand.
>>
>>> I would support Randy's candidature.
>> I will too then - if the the FAQ update procedure will be anyhow
>> formalized (see my other posts).
>
>I have never seen anything "wrong" with the FAQ Update procedure that
>is in place now. The procedure is fine. The problem is a matter of the
>editor having time to keep up with it.
The Editor has plenty of time available. He need only stop arguing with
VK, which is a task that others could undertake more compactly, and then
he would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a simple document.
Instead, he has chosen to abandon the responsibility which he has
undertaken.
I understand that the FAQ is maintained in a more complex form, and
believe that that should not cause significant maintenance overhead. If
it does so cause thereby preventing maintenance, the FAQ source should
change to a simpler form, either plain text or ordinary Web-ready HTML.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ???@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Check boilerplate spelling -- error is a public sign of incompetence.
Never fully trust an article from a poster who gives no full real name.
Matt Kruse
> The Editor has plenty of time available. He need only stop arguing
> with VK, which is a task that others could undertake more compactly
I recommend a FAQ entry and a form-letter group reply to VK postings that
contain errors. People who find VK's erroneous responses using newsgroup
searches will also find the reply and the pre-written justification for why
the response should be ignored. This group is far too cluttered by VK
debates, IMO. It's like a playground argument sometimes. Imagine what could
be accomplished with the time currently spent writing long replies to VK's
posts.
> and then he would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a
> simple document. Instead, he has chosen to abandon the responsibility
> which he has undertaken.
FAQ editing is boring and has questionable benefit. IMO, the FAQ is outdated
and much of it is no longer relevant. It's not a concise FAQ containing
answers the most typical and frequently-asked questions here. It contains a
lot of fluff, and a lot of answers that don't even need to be included
anymore.
Spending time editing a document that is often referred to but apparently
seldom read by the people who could benefit most from it is difficult to
justify. I know I wouldn't do it.
The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated and stay relevant
is to use a wiki interface with a set of approved editors, so that changes
can be made in real time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
--
Matt Kruse
http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com
http://www.AjaxToolbox.com
Peter Michaux
> The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated and stay relevant
> is to use a wiki interface with a set of approved editors, so that changes
> can be made in real time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
> for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
I absolutely agree with this idea. I think that a wiki with an approved
set of users would be the best way to go. And below each wiki page a
comment form so that unregistared users can contribute. If their
comments are assimulated into the wiki portion then delete their
comment to keep things clean. I think this is similar to what they call
"biki" format and is like the popular PHP or MySQL documentation
format. I think having a hierachy to the wiki like a table of contents
or book organization would be good to which is again like the PHP and
MySQL docs. And a form so that unregistared users can propose a new
article for review. I have written an app in Rails that is similar to
this but doesn't have the automatic wiki links.
Any other interest in this type of format?
Peter
VK
Matt Kruse wrote:
> I recommend a FAQ entry and a form-letter group reply to VK postings that
> contain errors.
I agree on that: but only paired with FAQ of links people saying thank
you to VK: and if they are all as one ignorance followed harmful
advises from me, then it has to be stated near of each link. Btw you
are "cluttering" (by your own expression) c.l.j. a few years longer
then I do but your count on this matter is much lower. Anyway if you
have guts for that second FAQ (with calling stupid everyone who ever
said thank you to me) then just go ahead with the first one. Otherwise
your idee fix with some "contre-VK" posts is getting too boring to read
(means I don't want to see this crap anymore on c.l.j.)
> > and then he would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a
> > simple document. Instead, he has chosen to abandon the responsibility
> > which he has undertaken.
He did not abandon his responsibility. Richard Cornford spent *several
months* of doing FAQ ver 8.x and it became not just FAQ: it became
*his* FAQ, *his* idea of JavaScript, *his* idea of proper and wrong.
And the next maintainer will be the same sooner or later. That is what
some people refuses to understand and this is why I am insisting on
some formal procedure of placing requests and taking actions on these
requests: equally protective for FAQ consistency and for new demands.
> The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated and stay relevant
> is to use a wiki interface with a set of approved editors, so that changes
> can be made in real time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
> for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
And who will these "approved editors" will be? By taking just few
possible candidatures (so sorry of missing others):
Martin Honnen
Richard Cornford
Matt Kruse
Randy Webb
Dr. Stockton
RobG
You mean these people will sit on an article and in some period of time
(lesser than an average human life) they will come to some mutual
"YES"? You must be kidding me! From my four years observations at least
three of them will not agree even on the name of the capital of France,
no matter how many time and posts will be spent. There must be a
defined list of people allowed to say yes or no, but a strict procedure
has to be imposed on the discussion period and on the voting period.
VK
VK wrote:
<snip>
> You mean these people will sit on an article and in some period of time
> (lesser than an average human life) they will come to some mutual
> "YES"? You must be kidding me! From my four years observations at least
> three of them will not agree even on the name of the capital of France,
> no matter how many time and posts will be spent. There must be a
> defined list of people allowed to say yes or no, but a strict procedure
> has to be imposed on the discussion period and on the voting period.
If any doubts left:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/194ae241e7eb3fe6/9d3766211bcca248>
The discussions like that over FAQ topics existing *for many years* I
see four years in the row: with not a single line changed. The linked
one either: after a few of more posts it will go too pathetic and OT so
one remembers anymore what was the practical point of the discussion.
Until everyone's ass is jammed into a strict reglament: 1) discussion
period 2) voting period 3) voting count 4) unconditional update by
majority YES; unconditional decline by majority NO : until that this
body will be as useless as it is now for FAQ updates.
Matt Kruse
> Matt Kruse wrote:
>> I recommend a FAQ entry and a form-letter group reply to VK postings
>> that contain errors.
> I agree on that: but only paired with FAQ of links people saying thank
> you to VK: and if they are all as one ignorance followed harmful
> advises from me, then it has to be stated near of each link. Btw you
> are "cluttering" (by your own expression) c.l.j. a few years longer
> then I do but your count on this matter is much lower.
The fact is, you post a lot to the group and your answers are often
incorrect, or at least lacking insight and experience. You may object to
following "best practices" or thinking things through to a depth that
someone like Richard does, but it's not done just for amusement - there is
real benefit to having a deeper understanding of what you're doing (although
sometimes I find myself wondering if Richard _does_ write such long posts
just for his own amusement ;). People who read your answers which may work
for them right now in one browser version and on a specific page may be
baffled when it breaks in a different situation. Your "good enough" answers
may do harm in the future.
You should always be open to criticism and self-improvement. I know that I
write things that aren't done in the most optimal way or that can be more
robust, and I like valid criticism that helps me improve.
> He did not abandon his responsibility. Richard Cornford spent *several
> months* of doing FAQ ver 8.x and it became not just FAQ: it became
> *his* FAQ, *his* idea of JavaScript, *his* idea of proper and wrong.
"Facts" are no more than a concensus of beliefs. Any conclusion or Truth is
only as good as your trust in the author who wrote it. If you don't trust
Richard's opinions, then don't read or recommend the document. I wrote my
"Best Practices" document in an attempt to help people, but it isn't perfect
and is subject to *my* ideas (with the input of others).
> And the next maintainer will be the same sooner or later. That is what
> some people refuses to understand and this is why I am insisting on
> some formal procedure of placing requests and taking actions on these
> requests: equally protective for FAQ consistency and for new demands.
Formalizing the process merely slows it down. The whole point of a wiki is
to NOT formalize the process, and instead trust in the evolution of
information as it approaches correctness. It's one approach, at least.
> And who will these "approved editors" will be? By taking just few
> possible candidatures (so sorry of missing others):
> Martin Honnen
> Richard Cornford
> Matt Kruse
> Randy Webb
> Dr. Stockton
> RobG
Looks decent, but I would remove myself (I wouldn't plan to make any
updates) and add Jim Ley, Lasse Nielsen, Michael Winter, and Grant Wagner.
> You mean these people will sit on an article and in some period of
> time (lesser than an average human life) they will come to some mutual
> "YES"? You must be kidding me! From my four years observations at
> least three of them will not agree even on the name of the capital of
> France, no matter how many time and posts will be spent.
The battle of ideas and debate needed to reach a concenses often ensures the
quality of the resulting document. Although it may be slower to reach a
result, the end result of a concensus of experts is surely of higher quality
and more trustworthy than the same information written by individuals. So
both must exist. Writings by individuals are useful because they are
released rapidly and stay current (such as on peoples' personal sites),
while the FAQ document is slower to evolve and may lag behind the times a
bit but is more robust and peer reviewed, so may be of higher final quality.
Dr J R Stockton
Nov 2006 11:19:53, Matt Kruse <newsg...@mattkruse.com> wrote:
>
>Spending time editing a document that is often referred to but apparently
>seldom read by the people who could benefit most from it is difficult to
>justify.
While it would be better if questioners (and answerers) were to read the
FAQ first, that is not the only way in which it can be useful.
Those who have read the FAQ and are basically in agreement with all of
it (ignoring Section 5) can use a reference to it to give a rapid brief
answer such as "See FAQ 4.17" + URL to common questions. That saves
their time, and also saves the time of the rest of us - when I read such
an answer I know (a) that it is sound, (b) that I'll learn nothing from
the response, and can move to the next article; I need only consider
whether an adequate answer for the given question has been selected.
But when a detailed response is posted in News, whoever by, it does need
to be looked over for accidental slips and omissions; and it does also
need to be looked over by me to see if it contains anything of interest
that I don't already know about. For common questions, the latter has
become rare.
>The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated and stay relevant
>is to use a wiki interface with a set of approved editors, so that changes
>can be made in real time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
>for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
Remember how, with proper software, the newsgroups mechanism can be much
better than straight Web use for those with dial-up or other
intermittent links. Those who sit 24/7 at a broadband link do not need
to use newsgroups but can use web-based forums instead. But even those
who normally use broadband may need from time to time to use dial-up or
similar - I've heard, for instance, that broadband is not everywhere
practical for private use in rural (!=outback) Australia.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Randy Webb
> Matt Kruse wrote:
<snip>
>>> and then he would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a
>>> simple document. Instead, he has chosen to abandon the responsibility
>>> which he has undertaken.
>
> He did not abandon his responsibility.
Actually, he did. For whatever reason (that I don't think really
matters) but it isn't being updated and hasn't for a long time. That was
the sole purpose of me starting this thread.
> Richard Cornford spent *several months* of doing FAQ ver 8.x and it became
> not just FAQ: it became *his* FAQ, *his* idea of JavaScript, *his* idea of
> proper and wrong.
And sadly enough, that is true and isn't the way it should be.
> And the next maintainer will be the same sooner or later.
To date, the only two names mentioned were mine and Bart. One declined,
the other offered to do it so it would be being done for the time being.
I don't like your implication though. There is a lot in the FAQ that I
disagree with but it is there upon a consensus of this group and that's
the way it should be. Not some supreme person making the final decision
but a group decision.
> That is what some people refuses to understand and this is why I am
> insisting on some formal procedure of placing requests and taking actions
> on these requests: equally protective for FAQ consistency and for new demands.
And if you propose an entry on Associative Arrays in JS and 99% of the
people here say no, what is to stop you from posting it once a week?
That is a two way street.
<snip>
> There must be a defined list of people allowed to say yes or no, but a
> strict procedure has to be imposed on the discussion period and on the
> voting period.
Your "defined list" suffers the same problem as the list itself. Who is
to create that list and how?
Peter Michaux
> To date, the only two names mentioned were mine and Bart. One declined,
> the other offered to do it so it would be being done for the time being.
What do you think of Matt's idea for a wiki format where several people
have a key? Jim Ley's vague criteria of any "known" person without bad
search results having access could be used. That's not me clearly. Just
a suggestion. And with a wiki format server access is not necessary for
small changes.
Peter
Randy Webb
> In message <G7ednSEGSYf...@telcove.net>, Sat, 18 Nov 2006
> 17:17:10, Randy Webb <HikksNo...@aol.com> writes
>> VK said the following on 11/18/2006 10:36 AM:
>>> Bart Van der Donck wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the offer, but unfortunately I don't have enough time to do
>>>> it.
>>> That's a pity but we understand.
>>>
>>>> I would support Randy's candidature.
>>> I will too then - if the the FAQ update procedure will be anyhow
>>> formalized (see my other posts).
>>
>> I have never seen anything "wrong" with the FAQ Update procedure that
>> is in place now. The procedure is fine. The problem is a matter of the
>> editor having time to keep up with it.
>
>
> The Editor has plenty of time available. He need only stop arguing with
> VK, which is a task that others could undertake more compactly, and then
> he would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a simple document.
> Instead, he has chosen to abandon the responsibility which he has
> undertaken.
Very very true.
> I understand that the FAQ is maintained in a more complex form, and
> believe that that should not cause significant maintenance overhead. If
> it does so cause thereby preventing maintenance, the FAQ source should
> change to a simpler form, either plain text or ordinary Web-ready HTML.
I have never understood why it is done the way it is other than
simplicity of producing the Web version and the plain text version for
posting to the group.
It has been brought up before about changing the way it is laid out with
respect to the numbers. It shouldn't be that hard to re-organize it and
have a server script that when a numbered anchor is requested it
redirects to a worded anchor. Then the numbered anchors in the archive
stay "working" but all new references would be #wordRef.
Randy Webb
> Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> To date, the only two names mentioned were mine and Bart. One declined,
>> the other offered to do it so it would be being done for the time being.
>
> What do you think of Matt's idea for a wiki format where several people
> have a key?
I have always thought it was a good idea. It was discussed briefly and
Jim agreed to install the wiki software and potentially change the url
to the FAQ to jsfaq.jibbering.com or something similar.
<URL:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/6a1cc381e0d9b95a/849989733392824e?lnk=gst&q=FAQ+Wiki+Randy+Webb&rnum=1#849989733392824e>
<URL:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_thread/thread/286a517a31161cdd/ec5fc410b483fe4e?q=FAQ+Wiki+Randy+Webb&lnk=ol&>
Are two threads where it was discussed previously about being a wiki.
> Jim Ley's vague criteria of any "known" person without bad search
> results having access could be used. That's not me clearly.
I can only think of one person who posts to this group that can be
searched and nothing "bad" found unless someone can find something
bad/wrong that Martin Honnen has ever written here. Martin reminds me of
the old EFHutton commercial "My broker is EFHutton and he says...<dead
silence in the room>".
Richard Cornford
> Matt Kruse wrote:
>> I recommend a FAQ entry and a form-letter group reply to
>> VK postings that contain errors.
>
> I agree on that: but only paired with FAQ of links people
> saying thank you to VK:
People saying 'thank you' is not much of a criterion to judge anything
by. In a subject where the best answer that can be given is that
addressing a problem with client-side scripting can only be, at best, a
Band-Aid 'hack' and that the real solution lies in some other aspect of
web environment (possibly unknown to the person asking the question), an
individual presenting that answer is unlikely to be thanked for it.
While someone posting the Band-Aid 'hack' along side the best answer may
well be thanked.
There was an ideal example of that earlier in the week when Martin
Honnen asked a question in response to an OP, which, if perused, would
have lead the questioner to the best solution to their problem and a
much better understanding of their web development task, and you later
posted the quick hack that plasters over the real issue. You were the
one that received the thanks, but what you actually did was directly
harm the OP, but leaving them in a position where they may never find
out that you have done so.
After all, nobody has ever disputed that Martine Honnen has more
technical knowledge and more practical experience than anyone else
currently regularly posting to the group (by a factor of at lest two).
In the event that your thought processes in response to a question
differ from Martin's there is absolutely no question that your response
will be significantly inferior. (Indeed, if you had stood back an let
Martin's response pan out to its conclusion you may have learnt enough
not be have embarrassed yourself by displaying such an ignorance of
UTF-8 later in the week)
It really is not very difficult to impress people who don't know any
better (after all, you assert that you are employed in web development
related field, so we have to assume that your employers don't know any
better, and you have no technically knowledgeable colleges, else you
would be out on your ear in no time). Impress people who do understand
the subject and you would have done something telling.
Richard.
Richard Cornford
> He need only stop arguing with VK, which is a task that
> others could undertake more compactly, and then he
> would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a
> simple document.
Will they? In the thread with the subject "objects with string indices"
these "others" have had two days to point out that when VK states "
15.10.2.11 DecimalEscape is the only place vaguely mentioning \0 and NUL
... " (in reference to ECMA 262, 3rd ed.) he is a fool to be looking in
the section of the specification that relates to regular expression
literal syntax for information on string literal syntax, or that the
other reference in the spec (making neither the "only place vaguely
mentioning \0"), and the applicable reference in the context of the
thread, is in section 7.8.3.
VK would benefit considerably from more people pointing out his errors
and nonsense because as it is he dismisses the criticism he has received
as personally motivated, regardless of its largely technical nature.
> I understand that the FAQ is maintained in a more complex
> form, and believe that that should not cause significant
> maintenance overhead. If it does so cause thereby preventing
> maintenance, the FAQ source should change to a simpler form,
> either plain text or ordinary Web-ready HTML.
Bart Van der Donck's unwillingness to discuss the requirements for
modifying the XML format implied in a number of requests for
presentation changes prior to adopting the existing XML format has
potentially had the undesirable side effect of fixing the current
format, as the changes necessary to accommodate the requests for change
will break his server scripts.
Richard.
Richard Cornford
> Matt Kruse wrote:
>
>> The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated
>> and stay relevant is to use a wiki interface with a set
>> of approved editors, so that changes can be made in real
>> time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
>> for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
>
> I absolutely agree with this idea. I think that a wiki with
> an approved set of users would be the best way to go.
Consider what you have done in the last week in an effort to
'contribute' to the FAQ. You have objected to the use of the word
"equivalent" in the entry about bracket notation, but you proposed no
alternative wording to go in its place. And you have proposed replacing
piece of code in the notes that is intended to demonstrate aspects of
feature detection with another that essentially uses the same tests, but
while the original is commented on every line, so any reader is in now
doubt about what the code is doing and how it is going to work, your
version was code only, leaving it to someone else to turn it into
something that a novice (or inexperienced) reader is likely to
understand well enough to learn from.
This is the norm. It is quite easy for someone to propose some addition
or minor alteration to the FAQ and leave it at that. That is not so
surprising as writing concise, technically accurate and useful
statements that can stand as full answers to specific questions is not
actually easy, and takes quite a bit of practice. After all, look at the
group; what proportion of answers given attempt to explain the whats and
whys, rather than just presenting a "try this" chunk of code?
The FAQ has stated for some time now that anyone could propose an
article for inclusion in the FAQ notes on any relevant subject. The
total number of article proposed for such inclusion to date has been
two; One by an individual who was indirectly promoting an inappropriate
use of the - eval - function, and who got offended at the suggestion
that such code should be removed, and the other from VK, where the
elimination of the technically false statements, confused descriptions,
the irrelevant associations and senseless 'sentences' would not have
left more than half a paragraph.
From this starting point do you really think that some nominated group
of regular contributors to this group are going to start creating
content that they have been unwilling to create to date? That the FAQ
being a wiki will somehow give them more time or more inclination?
I assume you are proposing "an approved set of users" because you have
perceived the consequences of letting anyone at all participate; that
the time and effort required to remove the 'contributions' of
individuals like VK who perceive their best interests in promoting the
lowest possible technical standard in web development would likely
overwhelm the minority who know the subject. Leave a result that was at
least partly technically wrong most of the time and would eventually
degenerate into an object that was worthless as a source of information.
But now you have excluded the possibility that someone may come along
who does know the subject, or (even worse) that someone may come along
with a very specific specialised interest in one aspect of javascript or
browser scripting. such an individual might contribute a very valuable
article to the notes, but they are not going to get the keys to your
wiki for some time.
There is little point in discussing alternative ways of creating a FAQ
until you can find people who are both willing and able to create the
content for it.
Richard.
Peter Michaux
> Peter Michaux said the following on 11/19/2006 7:24 PM:
>
> Jim agreed to install the wiki software
Sounds like it's almost settled. A wiki would be a great format to
aggregate knowledge in a more organized way then the newsgroup
archives. I don't know how you would generate a faq out of it but maybe
faq's are a little dated now anyway if good search results are
available. And like Matt says it's more important to be able to cite
the knowledge then to post it to the newsgroup as it probably goes
largely ignored.
Like I said before, I think it would be very good if non-registared
users were able to post comments on wiki pages so that anyone could
feel involved. This is the kind of JavaScript site I really wished
existed. The experienced members of this group are the only truely
knowledgable source of detailed JavaScript knowledge I've encountered
and having an easy way to organize this knowledge interactively would
be impressive.
How much bandwidth does the jibbering faq site use monthly?
> and potentially change the url
> to the FAQ to jsfaq.jibbering.com or something similar.
How about
Peter
Jim Ley
<peterm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> To date, the only two names mentioned were mine and Bart. One declined,
>> the other offered to do it so it would be being done for the time being.
>
>What do you think of Matt's idea for a wiki format where several people
>have a key?
I personally think Wiki documentation rarely works - I've seen it
other places (SVG etc.) but people have grand plans, but never get
into enough detail.
> Jim Ley's vague criteria of any "known" person without bad
>search results having access could be used.
That's just access to the machine! I don't want to let just anyone
access the machine, I'll gladly assist anyone else willing to do it -
it's just if I already "know" them from clj, then I'm going to trust
them.
> And with a wiki format server access is not necessary for
>small changes.
I would host a wiki certainly.
Cheers,
Jim.
Jim Ley
<HikksNo...@aol.com> wrote:
>I can only think of one person who posts to this group that can be
>searched and nothing "bad" found unless someone can find something
>bad/wrong that Martin Honnen has ever written here.
Bad in the sense of a reputation of abusing server access :-) not bad
as in making mistakes or getting pissed off people on usenet....
Jim.
Jim Ley
The site as a whole does over 20gig, I'm happy to continue hosting it
- I really need to get it on the new hardware though.
Jim.
Bart Van der Donck
> Bart Van der Donck's unwillingness to discuss the requirements for
> modifying the XML format implied in a number of requests for
> presentation changes prior to adopting the existing XML format has
> potentially had the undesirable side effect of fixing the current
> format, as the changes necessary to accommodate the requests for change
> will break his server scripts.
All I can say is that any content is possible as long as it's in the
following structure:
<FAQ>
<TITLE>title goes here</TITLE>
<CONTENTS>
<CONTENT TITLE="name of chapter 1">
<CONTENT TITLE="question 1">
answer 1
</CONTENT>
<CONTENT TITLE="question 2">
answer 2
</CONTENT>
</CONTENT>
<CONTENT TITLE="name of chapter 2">
<CONTENT TITLE="question 3">
answer 3
</CONTENT>
</CONTENT>
</CONTENTS>
</FAQ>
You're right that this is somewhat restrictive; but a XML parsing
program must know the data structure per definition. I think the
current format should leave enough room for flexible maintenance and
extension. But the group is free to vote otherwise, of course.
Contrary to other posts in this thread, I would tend to use a database
and a maintenance interface. The XML file could then be updated
automatically from DB content.
--
Bart
Randy Webb
Whew! Since you rule out making mistakes and pissing people off I might
be alright now :)
VK
Randy Webb wrote:
> Whew! Since you rule out making mistakes and pissing people off I might
> be alright now :)
So am I !
VK
VK wrote:
> > You mean these people will sit on an article and in some period of time
> > (lesser than an average human life) they will come to some mutual
> > "YES"? You must be kidding me! From my four years observations at least
> > three of them will not agree even on the name of the capital of France,
> > defined list of people allowed to say yes or no, but a strict procedure
> > has to be imposed on the discussion period and on the voting period.
>
> <http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/browse_frm/thread/194ae241e7eb3fe6/9d3766211bcca248>
>
> The discussions like that over FAQ topics existing *for many years* I
> see four years in the row: with not a single line changed. The linked
> one either: after a few of more posts it will go too pathetic and OT so
> one remembers anymore what was the practical point of the discussion.
>
> Until everyone's ass is jammed into a strict reglament: 1) discussion
> period 2) voting period 3) voting count 4) unconditional update by
> majority YES; unconditional decline by majority NO : until that this
> body will be as useless as it is now for FAQ updates.
In continuation of this:
"Re: FAQ Topic - How do I access a property of an object using a
string?"
Last posts:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/72ccd5cd7ff2cbbb>
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.javascript/msg/227cb4f3da43b539>
That's it for you, guys.
Maybe someone has (in her mind) an appointed clj's clown which is VK,
but it will be no circus with c.l.j. and c.l.j. FAQ
Next FAQ maintainer is coming with a strictly defined written FAQ
update procedure (request - discussion period - voting period -
acting). I'll make RFC sketch tonight if that wunderbar German beer
will bring my forces back which I've spend today with these
stubbering...
:-)
VK
VK wrote:
> Next FAQ maintainer is coming with a strictly defined written FAQ
> update procedure (request - discussion period - voting period -
> acting).
RFC "Updating Usenet newsgroup FAQ"
Category: Best Current Practice
Stage: tiny drafty sketch, something like this... :-)
Any FAQ update request can be of three types:
1) Request for update
2) Request to add
3) Request to remove
Each request is a well-formed XML document in ISO-8859-1 encoding. The
request language is English, therefore usage of any non-ASCII
characters is strongly discouraged.
(VK: What if the request contains samples/coding requiring encoding
other than ISO-8859-1 ?)
Each request must to have <faqentry> or <FAQENTRY> character sequence
in the post title.
The request body formed as:
<faqentry>
<requestor>Requestor name or commonly known nickname</requestor>
<action>update | add | remove </action>
<section>Section name</section>
<number>FAQ number</number>
<que>Question</que>
<ans>Answer</ans>
</faqentry>
Properly formatted request automatically becomes the Initial Request.
The moment of post of the Initial Request automatically starts the 5
days Discussion Period.
(VK: Or to be more generous? 7 days? 10? 15?)
Diring the Discussion Period anyone who read the post is welcome to
comment on and to discuss the request in the same thread in free form
(no special formatting is required).
Right after the end of the Discussion Period no further comments are
allowed. The requestor has three days after that to post an updated
version of her Initial Request wich becomes then the Call For Votes
(VFV) version. If the requestor did not post an updated version within
three days all comments are being counted as declined and the Initial
Request becomes CFV.
Within three days after that anyone entitled to vote can make one
voting post. The Usenet post must be titled <votes> and it must contain
one and only one of the following words:
YES
NO
ABSTAIN
Name/nickname is required for each vote, anonymous posts are
disregarded. ABSTAIN votes are not counted in the results. The version
passes the vote if there are at least 5 votes
received and at least 50% + 1 vote are YES.
1) Request for update specifics
<que> and <ans> section have to contain full text of the relevant FAQ
sections. The removed parts must be marked by <del> tags, the added
parts has to be marked by <ins> tags.
2) Request for add specifics
Immediately following the <action> element the request has to contain
at least three <message-id> elements with message-id's of questions
posted by different people on the topic in this group within the last
30 days. If the request doesn't contain <message-id> elements or if
there are less than three of them then such request is not valid and
disregarded.
Immediately following the last <message-id> element there can be
optional <rationale> element further explaining the need to add new
FAQ. <rationale> element is useful but optional and it cannot
substitute <message-id> elements.
3) Request for remove specifics
Immediately following the <action> element the request has to contain
<rationale> element explaining why this FAQ should be removed. If the
request doesn't contain <rationale> element then such request is not
valid and disregarded.
Peter Michaux
> VK wrote:
> > Next FAQ maintainer is coming with a strictly defined written FAQ
> > update procedure (request - discussion period - voting period -
> > acting).
> Each request is a well-formed XML document in ISO-8859-1 encoding. The
> request language is English, therefore usage of any non-ASCII
> characters is strongly discouraged.
Holy! This would be better implemented with a simple web page and form.
If visitors to the faq can leave comments on a particular section then
the comment can be handled whenever volunteers happen to have time. And
if that is a long time from when the comment is submitted at least the
comment is visible for other readers to evaluate.
Peter
Dr J R Stockton
<ejr5kr$q6k$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:58:34,
Richard Cornford <Ric...@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>It is quite easy for someone to propose some addition
>or minor alteration to the FAQ and leave it at that. That is not so
>surprising as writing concise, technically accurate and useful
>statements that can stand as full answers to specific questions is not
>actually easy, and takes quite a bit of practice.
And that is something that you have completely failed to do for the
newsgroup FAQ, at least to do visibly, over the past year.
Moreover, from what one sees of your writing, mainly to VK, it is
(however technically accurate) not in a style accessible to the sort of
newcomer that FAQs are intended for.
FAQ maintenance should be transferred to some javascript expert who will
be able to actually *produce* suitable material in sound English [*].
Would it be possible, Jim, for you to create a Web forum in which VK,
RC, and that ilk can debate to their hearts' content without polluting
this newsgroup? Would it work?
[*] IMHO, that requires someone who has been taught good English
properly; and that means, nowadays, someone from one of the smaller
countries of Mainland Europe. See sig!
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/clpb-faq.txt> RAH Prins : c.l.p.b mFAQ;
<URL:ftp://garbo.uwasa.fi/pc/link/tsfaqp.zip> Timo Salmi's Turbo Pascal FAQ.
Dr J R Stockton
<1163994055.8...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Sun, 19 Nov
2006 19:40:55, Peter Michaux <peterm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Randy Webb wrote:
>> Peter Michaux said the following on 11/19/2006 7:24 PM:
>>
>> I have always thought it was a good idea. It was discussed briefly and
>> Jim agreed to install the wiki software
>
>Sounds like it's almost settled. A wiki would be a great format to
>aggregate knowledge in a more organized way then the newsgroup
>archives. I don't know how you would generate a faq out of it but maybe
>faq's are a little dated now anyway if good search results are
>available. And like Matt says it's more important to be able to cite
>the knowledge then to post it to the newsgroup as it probably goes
>largely ignored.
I completely disagree. Such a site might be a valuable and accurate
resource, but it would not be a *newsgroup* FAQ.
The essence of a newsgroup FAQ is that the regular readers of the
newsgroup must feel a collective responsibility for it, and exercise
that responsibility through the medium of a co-operative editorial
system. For that, the FAQ *must* be routinely published in the
newsgroup, whether in large lumps or small, and it *must* reflect
ongoing discussion in the newsgroup. It *must* have the continuing
agreement of the current users of the group. There is no *need* for it
to have any more Web presence than that provided by Web/News interfaces.
As for finding material by Web search - it is tautologically inevitable
that half of the Web material is of less than median quality, and it is
easy to see that very much more than half is mediocre. It's also easy
to see that, inevitably, newcomers have the ability neither to formulate
a search biased to good material nor to assess the quality of what they
do find.
If you want to build such a site, go away and do it. It may be a
valuable site; it may be a FAQ about the same topics as news:c.l.j; but
it will not be a news:c.l.j FAQ. Let the news:c.l.j FAQ be continued,
as a news:c.l.j FAQ, by someone willing and able to actually do it.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 IE 6
<URL:http://www.jibbering.com/faq/> Old RC FAQ of news:comp.lang.javascript
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/js-index.htm> jscr maths, dates, sources.
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/jscr/&c, FAQ items, links.
Dr J R Stockton
<ejr5kk$q6f$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk>, Mon, 20 Nov 2006 02:58:27,
Richard Cornford <Ric...@litotes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dr J R Stockton wrote:
><snip>
>> He need only stop arguing with VK, which is a task that
>> others could undertake more compactly, and then he
>> would have ample time to edit a FAQ maintained as a
>> simple document.
><snip>
>
>Will they? In the thread with the subject "objects with string indices"
>these "others" have had two days to point out that when VK states "
>15.10.2.11 DecimalEscape is the only place vaguely mentioning \0 and NUL
>... " (in reference to ECMA 262, 3rd ed.) he is a fool to be looking in
>the section of the specification that relates to regular expression
>literal syntax for information on string literal syntax, or that the
>other reference in the spec (making neither the "only place vaguely
>mentioning \0"), and the applicable reference in the context of the
>thread, is in section 7.8.3.
Most of us have better things to do than arguing with VK; we only do so
for a little light relief. You too have had something better to do; but
you have not done it.
>VK would benefit considerably from more people pointing out his errors
>and nonsense because as it is he dismisses the criticism he has received
>as personally motivated, regardless of its largely technical nature.
There is strong evidence that he does not benefit from being argued
with; IMHO, he might benefit from being ignored.
When he gives an enquirer a wrong answer, it would be far better just to
post, as a reply to the enquirer, the correct answer, going only so far
as to include "VK is wrong".
>> I understand that the FAQ is maintained in a more complex
>> form, and believe that that should not cause significant
>> maintenance overhead. If it does so cause thereby preventing
>> maintenance, the FAQ source should change to a simpler form,
>> either plain text or ordinary Web-ready HTML.
>
>Bart Van der Donck's unwillingness to discuss the requirements for
>modifying the XML format implied in a number of requests for
>presentation changes prior to adopting the existing XML format has
>potentially had the undesirable side effect of fixing the current
>format, as the changes necessary to accommodate the requests for change
>will break his server scripts.
Don't knock Bart. He has actually done something useful over the past
year, and you have not. If it's been a matter of discussing it with
you, I suspect his unwillingness to be because of knowing that it would
be a waste of time and get nowhere,
When I maintained a UK newsgroup FAQ, this is how it was done.
I edited the master, in real time, on my PC. That means that when I saw
anything in the printed press, or on the Web, or in News or Mail, I
would edit the master "immediately" - just as I do with the master of my
Web site. Two or three times a day, when I dialled up, my first act
would be to transfer all changed pages (site & FAQ) to Demon's server,
so that they could then be read world-wide. And at around 04:00 each
Sunday morning, a CRON job (run by someone elsewhere; not Jim, but I
imagine Jim could easily have done it) read the FAQ from the Web,
replaced the Web headers with News headers, and posted it to News.
If any reader thought a change necessary and indicated it in News or
Mail, then, after any necessary discussion, I'd implement it as above.
That news-posting has ceased; that newsgroup is no longer needed; but
the FAQ is still on my site (I hope; perhaps I should look).
Now I don't at all say that it need be done that way; but it could be
done that way, and there can be no excuse for it being done in a wildly
less effective, or totally ineffective, fashion.
Here's a thought for a newsgroup FAQ : if any newsgroup regular whose
true identity is known in the Group posts a complete new or revised FAQ
portion, and if after at least some response in the group the maintainer
considers it to be a definite improvement, then the maintainer should
put that portion into the published FAQ (in a simple PRE box of a new
colour in the Web version) as is, *with* the true name of its final
author(s).
That should encourage contributions, but relieve the maintainer if
feeling that it must be as he would have written it.
--
(c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Delphi 3? Turnpike 6.05
<URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> TP/BP/Delphi/&c., FAQqy topics & links;
<URL:http://www.bancoems.com/CompLangPascalDelphiMisc-MiniFAQ.htm> clpdmFAQ;
<URL:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html> news:borland.* Guidelines
Jim Ley
<j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>FAQ maintenance should be transferred to some javascript expert who will
>be able to actually *produce* suitable material in sound English [*].
Just give me some names of who to hook up an account with - I'll hook
Randy up now (Randy grab me on skype JibberJim or other IM to transfer
the password) , and some others at some other time...
>Would it be possible, Jim, for you to create a Web forum in which VK,
>RC, and that ilk can debate to their hearts' content without polluting
>this newsgroup?
I'd rather not :-) I'm sure they could find one somewhere.
Jim.
VK
> > request language is English, therefore usage of any non-ASCII
> > characters is strongly discouraged.
>
> Holy! This would be better implemented with a simple web page and form.
> If visitors to the faq can leave comments on a particular section then
> the comment can be handled whenever volunteers happen to have time. And
> if that is a long time from when the comment is submitted at least the
> comment is visible for other readers to evaluate.
A few years ago I would agree with you (I even proposed something
similar rather secently, google clj). That is the question of balance
of traditions and benefits IMHO: c.l.j. is founded 1996 and it is a Big
Seven (only later Big Eight) Usenet group. Silly to mention... but it
would be nice imho to keep an Usenet-oriented approach of everything
happening in clj. The Web can be a great helper in preparing the needed
documents (like RFC helpers are). But the whole procedure should be
going through the Usenet so in case if it could be proceeded by the
Usenet means only.
Peter Michaux
> Peter Michaux wrote:
> > Matt Kruse wrote:
> >
> >> The only way the newsgroup FAQ can continue to be updated
> >> and stay relevant is to use a wiki interface with a set
> >> of approved editors, so that changes can be made in real
> >> time by a variety of people. It's nearly 2007. It's time
> >> for the FAQ process to catch up with the rest of the web.
> >
> > I absolutely agree with this idea. I think that a wiki with
> > an approved set of users would be the best way to go.
> <snip>
>
> Consider what you have done in the last week in an effort to
> 'contribute' to the FAQ.
I don't appreciate the implied sarcasm of the quotation marks.
If ones initial attempts to contribute are meet but such sarcasm
perhaps that explains why more people are not interested in
contributing.
> You have objected to the use of the word
> "equivalent" in the entry about bracket notation, but you proposed no
> alternative wording to go in its place.
This is a discussion group. I was interested in discussing this point.
The word equivalent could be removed.
> And you have proposed replacing
> piece of code in the notes that is intended to demonstrate aspects of
> feature detection with another that essentially uses the same tests,
It uses the same tests. It is virtually the same code but with a
simplified interface which I think is valuable for using the code.
Don't you?
> but
> while the original is commented on every line, so any reader is in now
> doubt about what the code is doing and how it is going to work, your
> version was code only,
I posted code only to the group for potential discussion. I think that
the more experienced people here wouldn't have a hard time penetrating
the code I posted. In fact they may not want to wade through many
comments just to have a quick look.
> leaving it to someone else
This is an assumption
> to turn it into
> something that a novice (or inexperienced) reader is likely to
> understand well enough to learn from.
No one seemed to care about the code I posted but if anyone showed
interest or did think the interface was easier then I could insert the
comments. I think the changes I made were a small but incremental
improvement on the example in the FAQ notes.
> This is the norm. It is quite easy for someone to propose some addition
> or minor alteration to the FAQ and leave it at that. That is not so
> surprising as writing concise, technically accurate and useful
> statements that can stand as full answers to specific questions is not
> actually easy, and takes quite a bit of practice.
Agreed.
> After all, look at the
> group; what proportion of answers given attempt to explain the whats and
> whys, rather than just presenting a "try this" chunk of code?
Answers on the group are in a conversational style and if someone is
stumped on a small part of the code they have the opportunity to ask
for clarification.
> The FAQ has stated for some time now that anyone could propose an
> article for inclusion in the FAQ notes on any relevant subject. The
> total number of article proposed for such inclusion to date has been
> two;
Perhaps the current FAQ contribution and updating process presents too
much barrior to contribution. Why bother when it will take months for a
suggestion to propogate to the FAQ? I think web users like to see
instant gratification as a reward for their effort and that is part of
reason for success of the interactive web (eg blogs, wiki, etc)
Perhaps the format of the FAQ notes are not exciting enough to generate
interest.
Perhaps credit attribution is not done in a sufficiently rewarding way.
> From this starting point do you really think that some nominated group
> of regular contributors to this group are going to start creating
> content that they have been unwilling to create to date? That the FAQ
> being a wiki will somehow give them more time or more inclination?
The daily FAQ posts have generated quite a bit of conversation. If it
was simply a matter of logging into the FAQ/Wiki/CMS and changing
something I think that would have happened a number of times over the
past weeks.
> I assume you are proposing "an approved set of users" because you have
> perceived the consequences of letting anyone at all participate; that
> the time and effort required to remove the 'contributions' of
> individuals like VK who perceive their best interests in promoting the
> lowest possible technical standard in web development would likely
> overwhelm the minority who know the subject. Leave a result that was at
> least partly technically wrong most of the time and would eventually
> degenerate into an object that was worthless as a source of information.
> But now you have excluded the possibility that someone may come along
> who does know the subject, or (even worse) that someone may come along
> with a very specific specialised interest in one aspect of javascript or
> browser scripting. such an individual might contribute a very valuable
> article to the notes, but they are not going to get the keys to your
> wiki for some time.
I have suggested that readers be able to leave comments after pages of
the FAQ. That is an improvement over the current situation.
Interested writers could of course submit an article either the way
they do now or there could be an article proposal form. Alternately,
articles could get a stamp of approval after review by the group.
Articles could be listed in a Pending Approval section. There are many
options with an interactive site.
It is not my wiki. It wasn't my suggestion. I just think something
interactive would be good.
> There is little point in discussing alternative ways of creating a FAQ
> until you can find people who are both willing and able to create the
> content for it.
Randy started this thread and has volunteered time.
Perhaps an alternative way of creating and presenting the FAQ will
generate interested people.
Peter
Peter Michaux
The FAQ and associated notes are on the web. I think the people here
all have a web browser. I don't think that using the web as part of the
group mechanics presents any barrior.
Peter
Dr J R Stockton
<1164133585....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Tue, 21 Nov 2006
>The FAQ and associated notes are on the web. I think the people here
>all have a web browser.
That will be generally true, and particularly so in a group concerned
with an aspect of Web authoring.
But, while writing for the Web and while reading/writing News, we do not
necessarily have an Internet connection running.
Those on dial-up with sensible, off-line, newsreaders and proper
newsservers will generally not. Those with portables and working away
from Base may not.
> I don't think that using the web as part of the
>group mechanics presents any barrior.
It does.
Newsgroup FAQs should be a News-based activity; but the material can be
put on the Web as a convenience for Web users.
Those who want a Web-based FAQ should write a Web-based FAQ using
Web-based tools for access.
It's a good idea to read the newsgroup and its old FAQ. See below.
--
Randy Webb
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:39:00 +0000, Dr J R Stockton
> <j...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> FAQ maintenance should be transferred to some javascript expert who will
>> be able to actually *produce* suitable material in sound English [*].
>
> Just give me some names of who to hook up an account with - I'll hook
> Randy up now (Randy grab me on skype JibberJim or other IM to transfer
> the password) , and some others at some other time...
I had to email it to you as I can't seem to catch you on an IM :\