[ZDP] The FAQ and the donkey

Martijn Faassen M.Faassen@vet.uu.nl
Thu, 11 Mar 1999 18:50:52 +0100

Pavlos Christoforou wrote:
> The gaaros site is experimental and it runs on ZServer. I thought it would
> be a good idea to run it on ZServer so we can 'debug' ZServer as well.

From the weirdness I've experienced with it, it does need some extra
debugging.. Perhaps you could assemble all these assorted vague bug
reports and enter them into the Zope bug reporting tool for us?

> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Martijn Faassen wrote:
> > I just wanted to mention that http://www.gaaros.com:9673/FAQ/ is not the
> > 'official FAQ site' currently. It's a site under development. The
> > intention is that the 'official ZDP FAQ' site (this'll be zdp.zope.org)
> > will use the stuff from Pavlos on garoos as soon as it's sufficiently
> > developed. (right Pavlos?)
> That's true. And if you want to go ahead with Amos FAQ product there
> is no problem again. 

I think (now that I've heard today you're going to do a rewrite of your
CoolFAQ tool), best would be to look at what Amos has, take the best
ideas from it, and fit them into your new design.

> Since I posted long time ago that Zope needs a
> FAQ I thought I should do something about it, in the spirit of open
> source, and not just provide suggestions for other people.

I think it's a great project! I actually looked into a Zope based FAQ
tool myself a long time ago, but I got bogged down in the intricacies of
writing products. I'll try writing Zope products again after my Zope zen
has increased (it's bound to by doing this FAQ :). Anyway, a FAQ tool
has plenty of applications outside the ZDP, as I mentioned before.
Perhaps with your second design you could try to open the development
process somewhat and focus on making it fairly easy to install for
people and extend it? I for one would like to
try to contribute.

> Butch Landingin wrote:
> [Martijn Pieters points to FAQ]
> > Thanks. That solved my problem.
> Yessssss!!!!


> On Wed, 10 Mar 1999, Martijn Faassen wrote:

> > There's now an official ZDP website, at zdp.zope.org. It's not much yet,
> > but we're working on it. The intention is to put up Pavlos' CoFAQ tool
> > (which is short Collaborative FAQ, per Ken Manheimer's suggestion, is
> > this an idea Pavlos?) up there soon.
> CoFAQ eh? Hmm... not bad at all. I wish collaborative was spelled
> coolaborative. Then we could have CoolFAQ!

I'm already calling it CoolFAQ. Who cares about the way Collaborative is
spelled; we can fake it. :) We just say this in the FAQ with a straight

* What does 'CoolFAQ' stand for?

    CoolFAQ stands for Collaborative FAQ.

> Every entry in the FAQ, questions, answers and comments need a
> timestamp. Questions will include author and email info. Should I
> include those for answers and comments too?


Perhaps Author should be 'contributor'. The ability to list multiple
contributors would even be better. I've noticed that I edit some
contributions extensively, and I do edits for all of contributions so
that there is not too much overlap between questions, and a reasonably
similar style. When the comment system works, editors become even more
important. Sections and perhaps even question/answer pairs therefore
need editor information associated. Editors would have permission to
edit the FAQ text, integrating comments; also the possiblity to delete
comments that've been integrated (or that turn out to be just plain
wrong). There should of course be global editors too. Therefore, at
least to 'section' we need a list of editors added. 'latest edit'
timestamp would be good too.

Also, perhaps an ability to turn off comments on certain sections, or
turn off global visibility of comments, at least. This isn't a big deal
for FAQs like Zope's, but if this tool is going to be used for instance
in an Intranet site, this might be desired.

> Sections should appear in a specified order. Right now the side bar is
> generated automatically and the sections correspond to the titles of
> the section folders. If we hardcode those then we will loose
> this functionality. (I have implemented both versions anyway.)
> Questions should accept the structured-text format.
> Anything else?

Well, there's output abilities, for instance in Docbook SGML/XML, or
preconverted stuff (postscript, plaintext, anything). But with your XML
system that can be added later without pain; the whole collaboration
facility + a good web output system is what's necessary now.

For the comment facility perhaps you can look at Collabra, at least for
inspiration. I haven't looked at it myself yet though. :)

> Thanks a lot to all who have provided suggestions

Hey, I like saying what I'd like and then you actually do it too. :) I'm
lazy. So, thanks right back to you!