Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000, Jeremy White wrote:
> > 2. Documentation should be clear (the user should quickly see
> > the thing that he or she wants, and there should be no confusion
> > as to which document is 'right')
>
> Sounds good!
>
> > 4. Switch the FAQ to use a FAQ-O-MATIC, to facilitate
> > updates and changes to it, and to allow the creation of a
> > world editable late breaking bugs section.
>
> F-O-M has advantages, but it also has disadvantages. A manually edited
> FAQ usually will be of higher quality (and more concise), but if there's
> someone dedicated to maintaining (i.e., regularily checking and cleaning)
> a F-O-M, this is not a big issue.
But a manually edited FAQ requires rather constant (or at least
consistent) attention, which it is not receiving now. Unless someone is
willing to be a more regular FAQ editor than the current WineHQ
maintenance staff (of which I'm a member, so I'm not bashing them at all
:-)), a FAQ-O-MATIC has a much better chance of being up-to-date.
A potential compromise would be to have a manually-edited section and a
FAQ-O-MATIC section, with good content occasionally pulled from the
world-updatable section into the "official" section.
--
James Juran
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
