FAQ Updates

D

Dr J R Stockton

In comp.lang.javascript message
Dr J R Stockton wrote:

<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".


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.
 
V

VK

VK said:
If any doubts left:
<http://groups.google.com/group/comp..._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...
:)
 
J

Jim Ley

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.
 
P

Peter Michaux

Richard said:
<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
 
R

Randy Webb

Jim Ley said the following on 11/21/2006 6:47 AM:
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 :\
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,743
Messages
2,569,478
Members
44,899
Latest member
RodneyMcAu

Latest Threads

Top