FAQ - Why was my post not answered?

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ - Why was my post not answered?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

This could be for several reasons:

*
It was a variation of a frequently asked question and was
therefore ignored by everyone

*
No one knows the answer

*
The person with the answer has not seen the post

*
It might not be possible to do what you want to do but
perhaps readers of clj are reluctant to answer your post
in the negative when they are not convinced that it
cannot be done.

*
The question was not asked clearly enough, or included enough
information to be answered.

*
The questioner did not realise the need to read the group, for
a few days, to see the answers posted there

If it is not one of these, then after a few days consider
reposting after checking

http://groups.google.com/

for
replies. Make sure the post is phrased well, and everything
needed to answer is correct, and the subject is appropriate.


===
Postings such as these are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

 

[John G Harris]

I find the subject rather confusing. Could you change "FAQ" to "FAQ
topic".

John

 

[Randy Webb]

John G Harris said the following on 8/3/2006 4:04 PM:

I find the subject rather confusing. Could you change "FAQ" to "FAQ
topic".

Agreed.

"FAQ Topic for Discussion - <subject here>" might be an even better
subject line.

 

[Bart Van der Donck]

John G Harris said the following on 8/3/2006 4:04 PM:

Agreed.

"FAQ Topic for Discussion - <subject here>" might be an even better
subject line.

OK, it's now "FAQ Topic". I found "FAQ Topic for Discussion - <subject
here>" a little long IMHO.

 

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 3
Aug 2006 21:04:02 remote, seen in John G

I find the subject rather confusing. Could you change "FAQ" to "FAQ
topic".

or "FAQ <topic-number>" ?

Additionally : if the content of a FAQ <topic-number> is changed other
than cosmetically, would it not be well to post the revised section
immediately?

Changes would then be available for comment without waiting until they
next appear in the regular sequence.

That is, assuming that all this does lead to actual updates to the FAQ
itself, which is AFAIR not yet established.

 

[Michael Winter]

JRS: In article <[email protected]>, dated Thu, 3
Aug 2006 21:04:02 remote, seen in John G


or "FAQ <topic-number>" ?

Whilst the subject of topic numbers has been raised, has any further
thought been put into the idea of revising the reference scheme? Using a
numbered system severely limits any scope for reorganisation. Ideally,
named identifiers could be used. For example:

#newsgroups -> 2.1 Which newsgroup deals with javascript?
#resources -> 3.2 What online resources are available?
#number-precision -> 4.7 Why does 5 * 1.015 != 5.075
or 0.06+0.01 != 0.07?

Note: I would prefer that the FAQ steered clear of fragments like #faInF
(form_access.html -> Introduction -> Forms, in the Notes) for something
that is hopefully easier to remember, if verbose.

Whilst I acknowledge that to simply discard the existing destination
anchors would render archived links invalid, the current consensus (at
least among the vocal posters) seems quite in favour of expanding the
FAQ. If that were to happen, reorganisation would eventually be a
necessity, in my opinion, as the list of topics would become unwieldy.
The obvious alternative would be to insert the new anchors as id
attributes of the topic headings and maintain the existing ones as they
are. Though this may eventually lead to out-of-sync topic numbers should
reorganisation occur, if it is agreed that such an undertaking may be
inevitable anyway, the switch should occur as early as possible to limit
the effects.

Additionally : if the content of a FAQ <topic-number> is changed other
than cosmetically, would it not be well to post the revised section
immediately?

Indeed, though it might depend upon what form the editing process
assumes. To post the section would imply that it has been committed to
the FAQ and updated on the website. I have no problem with that, but
might it be better to review the contents first? The two aren't mutually
exclusive, of course, but it might be redundant unless the review
continues over an extensive period.

[snip]

Mike