Re: Procedure for changing the FAQ

[Frank Schmitt <ich@Frank-Schmitt.net>]

"Stefan Monnier" <monnier+gnu/emacs@rum.cs.yale.edu> writes:

> I think the FAQ has generally not been maintained very well for the simple
> reason that such FAQs should be addressed by the manual rather than
> by a FAQ.  Admittedly, the way it's presented is different, so there's
> some sense to having a FAQ additionally to the manual, but please think
> of it as another kind of index to the manual: most answers should @xref
> to the relevant part of the manual.  If there's no such thing in the
> manual, then the manual needs to be updated.

I partly disagree, partly agree. First of all, the main documentation
is huge and the answers to the questions especially newbies have are
often in sections where they wouldn't expect them.

Therefor a FAQ should explain all major concepts, but concentrate on
the most important parts (e.g. only mention the most often used command
switches) while referring to the manual for more details. However, the
informations contained should be sufficient to get you running with a
basic setup.

It's hard to explain, perhaps you throw an eye at
http://my.gnus/org/FAQ where I tried to make a FAQ that meets my idea
of a good one to see what I'm talking about. 

(BTW: This shows that it isn't this much work, the FAQ contains at the
moment 68 question - answer pairs and the text version has about 1,600
lines and it took me all together only about 2-3 weeks to write it from
scratch)

MFG Frank

-- 
WANTED: A nice signature
REWARD: none