home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!decwrl!hal.com!olivea!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!mucs!m1!bevan
- From: bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen J Bevan)
- Newsgroups: comp.object
- Subject: Re: FAQ (Part 1 of 2)
- Message-ID: <BEVAN.93Jan26140059@tiger.cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: 26 Jan 93 14:00:59 GMT
- References: <1993Jan23.071036.141@netcom.com>
- Sender: news@cs.man.ac.uk
- Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester
- Lines: 24
- In-reply-to: objsys@netcom.com's message of 23 Jan 93 07:10:36 GMT
-
- In article <1993Jan23.071036.141@netcom.com> objsys@netcom.com (Bob Hathaway) writes:
- I'm posting this incomplete FAQ (we're still not done arguing yet) ...
- [deleted]
- Objective:
- In the spirit of other FAQs, to provide a simple document to answer the most
- frequently asked and recurring questions and to allow new users to understand
- frequently discussed topics and terms used in comp.object.
- [body of FAQ deleted]
-
- IMHO, the spirit of a FAQ is captured in the first part of the above
- objective, but the second part is outside the domain of a FAQ. By
- definition a FAQ should contain frequently asked/answered questions.
- However, most of the body of part 1 of the FAQ contains questions and
- answers I've never seen in this group%. Maybe I'm just being a pedant,
- but wouldn't it be better to have the FAQ contain what its name
- implies and leave the other information to a separate message?
- For example, part 2 of the current FAQ could become "List of available
- OOL/OODBMS implementations".
-
- bevan
-
- % There is plenty of discussion about them (mainly prompted by the
- posting of the current FAQ :-), but most of the issues have not been
- asked independently and certainly haven't been asked frequently.
-