Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!news.mixmin.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Message-ID: <7112671.6N6nmtZEex@PointedEars.de> From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Reply-To: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn Organization: PointedEars Software (PES) Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2012 18:50:05 +0100 User-Agent: KNode/4.4.11 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Face: %i>XG-yXR'\"2P/C_aO%~;2o~?g0pPKmbOw^=NT`tprDEf++D.m7"}HW6.#=U:?2GGctkL,f89@H46O$ASoW&?s}.k+&. <8784c16d-0661-4482-a79b-75007745b1cb@googlegroups.com> Followup-To: comp.lang.javascript MIME-Version: 1.0 Lines: 50 NNTP-Posting-Date: 01 Dec 2012 18:50:07 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: d450cf61.newsspool1.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=`9o1MW<_7A`]l@YUW5NBknic==]BZ:afn4Fo<]lROoRankgeX?EC@@`E^]7Dg`Z:QjDZm8W4\YJNlR=i2=[N6Y6j:RC@^;XXGPoLG:^n6c@S@e X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.javascript:17399 Matt McDonald wrote: > On Thu, 22 Nov 2012, jim.ley@gmail.com wrote: >> The problem has always been finding a maintainer with the time... > > Thomas has my explicit support. His extensive technical depth is > befitting of the role of FAQ maintainer. I am also available to > assist him if need be. Thank you very much. I would like to point out, however, that a technical background should be only one requirement. AISB, a FAQ is not supposed to be a tutorial (it can refer to good tutorials, though), and the answers it provides are not supposed to replace Usenet articles (it can refer to good Usenet articles, though). So its style needs to be different from that of those two. You need to be explain the technical issues in a concise, consistent, and factually correct way, so that a person willing to learn can understand it and use it as basis for their self-education. Given my experience in successfully teaching computer technology, including software development, to many different kinds of people IRL and on the Net for many years, I can do that. Any help provided to that end would be appreciated. >> I would caution that a WIKI will require more regular maintaining >> to prevent spam if it's at all open, but at least can remain >> current. > > In my experience with Wikipedia, its esoteric editing syntax and odd > commenting system have been counterproductive. I think that an HTML > FAQ buttressed by complementary discussion on Usenet is optimal. I am not opposed to using MediaWiki; I have been a Wikipedia contributor for many years and I am familiar with what I think is a rather intuitive syntax. However, the current FAQ is apparently XML-based. XSLT stylesheets can provide the same content in different forms that are suitable for the Web and plain-text media like Usenet, given consistent markup. So I think that the issues with the (posted) plain-text version of the FAQ can be solved as well. Regards, PointedEars -- Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are positively harmful for cross-browser scripting. -- Richard Cornford, cljs, (2004)