# pgman@candle.pha.pa.us / 2005-02-04 17:17:47 -0500:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com / 2005-02-04 12:30:00 -0500:
> > > would be more appropriate in the proper documentation than in a FAQ.
> >
> > Every FAQ is an excuse for proper documentation. :)
>
> I disagree. The FAQs are really to document items where the place to a
> look for a solution would not be obvious. This seems like one of them.
For questions with non-obviously placed answers, the FAQ should look
like:
Q: How do I ...
A: See The Manual section X.Y.Z
As soon as you put in anything else than just pointers at the documentation,
things go awry, my favorite example is the FreeBSD Handbook chapter on disks,
and the FreeBSD FAQ entry "How do I move my installation to my new disk".
Frequently Asked Questions doesn't mean Unstructured Bits Of Info.
That's just my .02.
--
FreeBSD 4.10-STABLE
11:43PM up 15:47, 8 users, load averages: 0.08, 0.06, 0.01