|
|
Posted by Jan Roland Eriksson on 11/10/05 22:58
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:54:15 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:33:40 +0100 from Jan Roland Eriksson
><jrexon@newsguy.com>:
>> We ended up in a yet unsolved disagreement; where resulting history
>> seems to give me the edge when I said that Usenet is a better forum for
>> FAQ postings as compared to web based FAQ lists.
>
>But using both media is better still, as I hope you'll agree.
Sure; Usenet traditions calls for an _original_ version of a FAQ list to
be posted to the NG where it belongs. That original FAQ list shall have
a URL to a web copy (if one exists) it in its meta head.
The setup of this following meta head is correct as per Usenet
recommendations (once approved and registered by the moderators at MIT)
and the text version is the last updated original.
http://www.css.nu/faq/ciwas-mFAQ.txt
There is a URL too pointing to what should be a web copy of the text but
still unfinished due to my lack of time and energy.
Let's hope that Tina will find time to do some update work on the css.nu
FAQ lists now when she has volunteered to take over and run the css.nu
domain. At least there should be a cron job set up to post the text once
a week, I'll see if I can motivate Tina to set it up.
Info on how to set up the framework of a correct FAQ list and how to get
it approved for postings to the correct *.answers hierarchy[1] is given
in this old but timeless document...
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/faqs/about-faqs/
A Usenet NG can have as many FAQ lists as its users see fit but in most
cases there is at least one list that is sort of 'primary', i.e. the one
that directly addresses the procedures for the NG and FA questions
directly on topic for the NG.
[1] all *.answers NG's are (supposed to be) moderated and all postings
passes through a (sometimes human) moderator gateway before they are
allowed to enter an *.answers NG.
--
Rex
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|