httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Pepper <>
Subject Re: What should the FAQ contain? (was Re: Proposal: Trash the 2.0 FAQ.)
Date Wed, 21 Feb 2001 19:56:31 GMT
	It seems to me that these are distinct categories of 
questions, both of which should be easily accessible. Perhaps they 
should be different pages, organized and laid out similarly. We might 
have a heading "I. Apache doesn't compile or work -- what's wrong??", 
and another "II. Apache doesn't do what I expect. What do I do now?", 
with suggestions to make sure modules are loaded, etc.

	Certainly, there are non-'showstoppers' that really should be 
in a FAQ somewhere.


At 11:17 AM -0800 2001/02/21, Joshua Slive wrote:
>There seems to be general support for starting from scratch with the 2.0
>FAQ, subject to first posting what I plan to keep.
>However, I would like to see some opinions on the question raised by Bill
>on what criteria should be used for including things in the FAQ.
>Summary (please correct me if I'm not being fair):
>Option 1:
>- Include only "Showstopper" FAQs which prevent people from using Apache.
>I believe this would mean that the FAQ would contain a few of the
>questions in the current categories C and D and nothing else.  New
>documents could be created for "Background information" (Part A), and
>other information could be moved to more appropriate places in the docs.
>Option 2:
>- Include questions which are "frequently asked" in the newsgroups, bug
>database, or the addresses.  Include these things in the
>FAQ only if they cannot be adequately addressed elsewhere, either because
>they don't fit in any other documents, or they need to be repeated for
>added emphasis.
>My personal opinion is that, while "showstoppers" should be given
>priority, Option 1 is too restrictive.

Chris Pepper:                   <>
Rockefeller U Computing Services:  <>
Mac OS X Software:                      <>

View raw message