Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 26384 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2010 16:37:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 1 Oct 2010 16:37:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 63126 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2010 16:37:09 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-docs-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63064 invoked by uid 500); 1 Oct 2010 16:37:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list docs@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 63056 invoked by uid 99); 1 Oct 2010 16:37:09 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:37:09 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.2 required=10.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of poirier@pobox.com designates 208.72.237.35 as permitted sender) Received: from [208.72.237.35] (HELO sasl.smtp.pobox.com) (208.72.237.35) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 16:37:04 +0000 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AA76CC962 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; s=sasl; bh=5GwZ4rd8vqXIurRk+vk909Ra6LM=; b=cRM0JN U4+t7ajq0S5l9AG3CiozEROr0u74kpF8VcbgYtevz7B7u+lw2/s1LSD/2vkS6V3z NagVXFgneAq0en7oYpaADyEEi9/vR1GeYNG/h7wuoZAJ/436NJWsdOK8sTWrQzDB EBdXbXxLUBdtWoW9rZjzEqnJJOQTnZQBlEwJU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=jHmkGYcxYmPm+FxdnFCo8j9wl5kTa/n2 aKqFOSWDSXZDPBklHRy+uc3ySNAaPFOt7IB2sHDWZRNwTEpsshUlaK1yV//L+opw uRACv/AeDSUpFo9LwWHDJo8IKdT3hNgkWrzldmCluoR+ioWaTS8WNGCH/Hm09xoI I6GHpo4+2o4= Received: from b-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53CB4CC960 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:36:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f173.google.com (unknown [74.125.82.173]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by b-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D472CC95F for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:36:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39so3982333wyb.18 for ; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:36:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.127.84 with SMTP id f20mr5178500wbs.3.1285950995983; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.71.199 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:36:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101001172548.1173877e@baldur> References: <12B4D256-387B-4B0C-97C6-31D947F4D399@rcbowen.com> <4CA605D5.90202@kippdata.de> <20101001172548.1173877e@baldur> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:36:35 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: FAQ From: Dan Poirier To: docs@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fa534507a62049190cc7c X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 11D3883C-CD7A-11DF-9074-DDE5016DD5F0-25076293!b-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com --0016367fa534507a62049190cc7c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew wrote: > On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:01:25 +0200 > Rainer Jung wrote: > > > On 01.10.2010 17:18, Rich Bowen wrote: > > > * Is it even worthwhile to have a FAQ? I think it probably is, but what > > > I mean is, is it useful to have this as a monolithic static document, > or > > > should we be doing something else here? > > > > I think it is worthwhile. We do now have Wikis available, which are an > > interesting alternative for producing FAQ type content. Maybe once can > > include an export of the wiki when doing a release and add links to > > increase chances of users contributing to the Wiki? > > On reading DrBacchus's post, my immediate reaction was to say > bin the FAQ and point to the wiki instead. That improves the chances > of it being maintained, rather than getting ever more out-of-date > until someone finally gets around to it. > > Insofar as there's material in the FAQ that's worth keeping alive, > maybe export it to the wiki. > > I was also thinking that we shouldn't need a FAQ if the doc is good, but maybe it would make sense as a set of links to the doc. How does fajita know where to refer people? Maybe some of that knowledge could be applied to create a new FAQ-like document. -- Dan Poirier --0016367fa534507a62049190cc7c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com> wrote:
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 18:01:25 +0200
Rainer Jung <rainer.jung@kipp= data.de> wrote:

> On 01.10.2010 17:18, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > * Is it even worthwhile to have a FAQ? I think it probably is, bu= t what
> > I mean is, is it useful to have this as a monolithic static docum= ent, or
> > should we be doing something else here?
>
> I think it is worthwhile. We do now have Wikis available, which are an=
> interesting alternative for producing FAQ type content. Maybe once can=
> include an export of the wiki when doing a release and add links to > increase chances of users contributing to the Wiki?

On reading DrBacchus's post, my immediate reaction was to say
bin the FAQ and point to the wiki instead. =C2=A0That improves the chances<= br> of it being maintained, rather than getting ever more out-of-date
until someone finally gets around to it.

Insofar as there's material in the FAQ that's worth keeping alive,<= br> maybe export it to the wiki.

I was also thinking that we shouldn't ne= ed a FAQ if the doc is good, but maybe it would make sense as a set of link= s to the doc.

How does fajita know where to refer people?=C2=A0 Mayb= e some of that knowledge could be applied to create a new FAQ-like document= .

--
Dan Poirier
<poirier@pobox.com>


--0016367fa534507a62049190cc7c--