Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.albasani.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-ID: <1463892.vp2pE7osQE@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:39:57 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <1868da91-d142-49ee-8b09-27c0983c1af4@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 43 NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Dec 2012 18:40:01 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: 1b198ff5.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=2N;E4O2b7aE0YVY]kmLTlDic==]BZ:afN4Fo<]lROoRAnkgeX?EC@@@E^]7Dg`Z:QJDZm8W4\YJNLR=i2=[N6Y6JcMZFf;MOokNCNagJEJbh_B X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17489 Patricia Shanahan wrote: > On 12/5/2012 3:48 AM, Asen Bozhilov wrote: >> Thomas wants to maintain the FAQ and I believe he would improve the >> FAQ with more entries and fixing the currents. I propose instead of >> discussing who can or cannot be the new maintainer to give a chance of >> Thomas Lahn. > > I came to this newsgroup as someone starting learning what is commonly > called JavaScript, so I was presumably in the FAQ target audience. Yes, definitely. One must always keep the target audience in mind. > When I looked at the FAQ, I felt it was far too long. The temptation > with a FAQ is always to turn it into every question anyone might want to > ask about the newsgroup topic, whether or not it is actually frequently > asked. I think the FAQ could be greatly improved by severe editing to > get it down to a point where every question in it would be asked within > a few weeks if it were not covered by the FAQ. Full ACK. That is a part of what I intend to do. But I would not delete a good question-and-answer pair, only disable it for output for the time being (if I could use XSLT, I would devise an optional `disabled' attribute on the relevant element and “select” against that in the template). Should the question come up frequently again within a reasonable interval, it could be easily re-enabled. Removing the current hard(er)-to-maintain section numbering (while keeping the relevant anchors, so that references continue working) in favor of a better overall FAQ structure would be a part of that change. But I would have to see first how much can be done with the current content and code and how much work a change is going to be, so that the urgent tasks are done first. For example, disabling the daily posting of those (two years outdated) FAQ entries until they have been reviewed, as John Stockton suggested. Regards, PointedEars -- When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).