[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [h-e-w] Help needed in Maintaining Emacs w32 FAQ

From: David Vanderschel
Subject: Re: [h-e-w] Help needed in Maintaining Emacs w32 FAQ
Date: 05 Oct 2005 21:15:10 -0500

On Wednesday, October 05, "Jason Rumney" <address@hidden> wrote:
>David Vanderschel <address@hidden> writes:

>> I don't remember much discussion that opposed the idea
>> of folding help for emacs on Windows into the wiki.

>RMS once opposed the idea, but I do not remember if it was for the
>Emacs-W32 FAQ, or the main Emacs FAQ. His opinion was that the FAQ is
>expected by users to be accurate, so the FSF should have some degree
>of control over its content. However if his comments were about the
>main Emacs FAQ, then he might not consider it necessary to place the
>same restrictions on the Emacs-W32 FAQ  

Logically, I think RMS's argument would apply just as
well to Windows-specific issues.  I do understand the
argument.  However, what concerns me is that, to be
useful, the Official Emacs-on-Windows FAQ needs to be
maintained.  The irony is that, with a dual approach,
I expect the information in the wiki will tend to be
more up to date and more useful on account of it.
There is a danger that some (but not enough) effort
will be expended to maintain the official FAQ, when
few people are using it (and would be ill-advised to
do so).  If possible, I would like to find a way to
avoid the apparently redundant (and possibly wasted)

A thought:  Might it not be possible to blend FSF
"officialness" into the wiki?  Eg., could the wiki not
freeze FSF-approved pages?  Ie., when you go to a page
you might find a notation like "content on this page
verified by FSF" OR "There is an earlier version of
this page which has been checked by the FSF:  [link]
This version contains additional new material
regarding [whatever]."

It strikes me that many of the folks working on the
wiki are already the same folks who can speak for the
"officialness" of some information.

  David V.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]