Peter Michaux said the following on 11/22/2006 12:42 AM:
I don't think anyone here would want to do that much correcting.
Then it would get bloated with incorrect information.
The other problem with a wiki based approach is that if you leave it
open for *any* subject, then it ceases to be an FAQ site and becomes a
documentation site.
Wikipedia already exists for this and if folks know that the c.l.j.
resource is somewhat verified it has a different appeal.
I asked twice in the other thread on the FAQ how you would go about
deciding who to grant edit access to and VK didn't answer me either
time. Either you have a wide open format where anybody can post (like
wikipedia does) and you have problems. If you limit access to post, you
have problems. If it is limited access then yes, it is "verified", but
you still have to have some mechanism in place for non editors to
contribute.
I don't think this is really a big problem. All open source projects
have a subset of contributors with commit status. You could scream for
commit status until you are blue in the face but if the people who hand
out commit status won't give it then you are out of luck. The important
part is having different ways so that everyone can contribute and feel
part of the effort.
True, and that part is there now. The faq modification process is very
well established and *anybody* can make a request to have the FAQ
modified so making it a wiki wouldn't change anything in that regards.
Is it not possible to dictate the environment on the JavaScript FAQ
server? Jim Ley mentioned he would pass out SSH access to a known
person.
I wasn't referring to Jim's server. I was referring to the environment
that PHP and mySQL execute in. Trying to find a needle in the haystack
in PHP is simple, but trying to dynamically load a .js file and execute
it in a browser is totally different. You can't quite document JS with
simple answers was my only point.
Not at all. That is quite easy actually. Just travel down the book tree
and concat the sections.
A Javascript FAQ isn't that large though. Its about Frequently Asked
Questions and it changes over time. There are some FAQ's now that
weren't even heard of 3 years ago (witness: AJAX) but there are some
that get asked forever and ever (witness: eval). The problem with that
is historical reasons. You can't delete entries because it will kill 99%
of the links in the archives. So, it just keeps growing and growing
Then the whole exercise is futile
Probably so.
Actually I think this is an important point. Why don't they read it
now? People are searching for JavaScript information all the time.
#1 Reason? Improper search term. A Google search for "Javascript FAQ"
turns up this groups FAQ as the #3 hit.
The second reason is the ease with which people can post a question in
Usenet now. Before Google Groups, you had to go through the steps of
setting up a newsreader, opening a Usenet account, subscribing, etc..
Now, you can post to Google Groups in under 10 minutes. Email address is
all that is required and Google will even give you that (GMail). It's
"easier" to just ask the question than to try to find the answer. Why
search through the archives hunting an answer when you can post in less
time than that?
Probably half of the questions asked here are of the type "I am not a JS
programmer, just need a little help". They don't want to learn JS, they
just want free programming.
Perhaps a new format would be more exciting and generate more use of
the FAQ and FAQ notes.
Only to the people interested in actually learning instead of just
wanting an answer so they can move on.
I meant a book-type organization to the faq page and notes. Not
necessarily 1000 pages of notes.
I was thinking more of a book type where each "chapter" would be a
different page with a table of contents. I still don't think it would
add anything to what is there now as most of the answers are "Quick
Answers". I do think that if there was a Notes page linked to from each
entry in Section 4 then it would eventually turn into a Book format
though. You get a Quick Answer and a link to the Chapter that explains
it in more detail.
If the FAQ itself is a single node in the hierarchy then this would
remain. Or the FAQ sections could be concatenated on the fly to
generate a complete FAQ. There are options.
True.
That would be a nice feature.
I think this insert code example would be good in the notes. After
inserting the code then it is easy to play with the code in the Firefox
Firebug console or another javascript console. I have been using this
trick with my own notes quite a bit lately and it is very useful. It is
nice to interact with the code live sometimes. JavaScript is a uniqe
programming language in that it's examples presented in HTML can be
dynamic like this.
I have become so adept at <ALT><ENTER><DOWN><DOWN><ENTER><ALT-TAB><F5>
with a test page that I just personally don't see a benefit for me.
Especially when I can make a test page to save locally and always have
my code handy to tinker with and test in different browsers.
I was thinking that if a change in format was desired then the two
efforts (content and format) could proceed in parallel.
I sat tonight and hunted down the Entry requests since the last update
was done. I am positive I missed some because of the recent faq postings
that got discussed. So far, I have 44 requested entries to go through,
try to write/modify the entries, post it to the group, remodiy/edit, and
then get it posted. The last thing I want to do in the middle of all
that is deal with a new format. Get the FAQ now updated, get it posted
regularly again, and then come back to the format issue.