187403 - FAQ for mozilla.documentation newsgroup

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(support.mozilla.org :: Forum, task)

Description

[Daniel Wang]

because it would be ridiculous for documentation not to have one

Comment 1

[Daniel Wang]

-> endico

Comment 2

[Daniel Wang]

Attachment: FAQ Draft

Comment 3

[Nuno Silva]

Great job made by Daniel Wang however it has some grammar/spelling errors and a
missing link:
line 43: instead of stolenclover%yahoo.com.tw should be [e-mail]
line 55: instead of Premble should be Preamble
line 58: instead of Where is the latest vesion should be Where is the latest version
line 70: instead of Where are end-user support should be Where are the end-user
support
line 86: instead of Part II Documenation should be Part II Documentation
line 90: instead of Where is the documenation should be Where is the documentation
line 106: instead of What need to be done? should be What needs to be done?
line 126: instead of Where to find documentatation? should be Where to find
documentation?
line 130: instead of Section 0 Premble should be Section 0 Preamble
line 135: instead of Copyright (c) 2002-2003 by the Daniel Wang should be
Copyright (c) 2002-2003 by Daniel Wang
line 145: instead of its finanicial supportors should be its financial supportors
line 149: instead of Where is the latest vesion should be Where is the latest
version
line 152: instead of in any permenant place should be in any permanent place
line 309: instead of committment to walk should be commitment to walk
line 309: instead of the documenation process should be the documentation process
line 314: instead of of developement should be of development
line 331: instead of perference is should be preference is
line 373: instead of Part II Documenation should be Part II Documentation
line 377: instead of the documenation projection should be the documentation
projection
line 396: instead of software develope faster should be software developes faster
line 425: instead of be resonably expected should be be reasonably expected
line 465: instead of documenation you deem relevent should be documentation you
deem relevant
line 467: instead of Web developement with should be Web development with
line 479: ReadMe files bug tree has no link
line 502: instead of the relevent bug should be the relevant bug
line 526: instead of in Mozilla documenation? should be in Mozilla documentation?
line 529: instead of For docemenation on should be For documentation on
line 536: instead of my Mozilla documentaion? should be my Mozilla documentation?
line 561: instead of writing your documenation. should be writing your
documentation.
line 650: instead of to find documentatation? should be to find documentation?
line 655: instead of mozilla.org documenation catalog should be mozilla.org
documentation catalog

Comment 4

[Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen)]

* The questions are essentially headers, so they should be marked up as such.
* Using the style attribute doesn't set a good example for authors and isn't
  particularly maintainable. Collecting the styles in one place and using CSS 
  selectors would be better.
* Since new FAQ entries could be inserted in the future, it would be better 
  to use names derived from the subject matter of each question for the 
  named anchors instead of using the numbering which could be changed.
* The word "public" in the newsgroup name is explained a welcome sign for
  developers. Is this true? I thought it meant that the newsgroups are 
  non-internal from the point of view of Netscape--that is, they are 
  accessible from outside Netscape.
* How about just saying a clear "no" to HTML messages? What circumstance 
  would "call for" the use of HTML in a post to n.p.m.documentation?
* I'd advise readers of the FAQ to put the things they consider attaching 
  on a Web server.
* Under the American "Work For Hire" doctrine the copyright of 
  Netscape-contributed documentation is likely to belong to Netscape 
  rather than the writers. IANAL, though.
* Perhaps mention that the code that adds the site navigation to documents on
  www.mozilla.org works with HTML 4.01 Strict and Transitional but will 
  invalidate other flavors of (X)HTML, which is why documentation should be 
  valid HTML 4.01 Strict or Transitional. Also, at present the character 
  encoding needs to be declared in a <meta> tag because no one has come 
  forward with details on getting it in the HTTP headers on www.mozilla.org.

Comment 5

[Daniel Wang]

Thanks for the feedback. The FAQ has been updated and posted to
bug 151101. The direct link is
jar:http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=110859&action=view!/index.html

Added

3.5 Zope - the future of mozilla.org? (placeholder)
3.6 How do I request documentation?
6.3 A small note on HTML format.
8 Quality Assurance

Comment 6

[Nuno Silva]

revision list for FAQ update:

line 7: instead of developers, and end users should be developers and end users
line 70: instead of href="/get-involved.html" should be href="get-involved.html"
line 93: instead of href="[e-mail]" should be
href="mailto:[e-mail]"
line 108: instead of href="mailto:[e-mail]&" should be
href="[e-mail]"
line 296: instead of is a historical should be is an historical
line 312: missing link: http://www.mozilla.org.uk/newsgroups.txt
line 322: missing link: http://help.netscape.com/nuggies/
line 693: instead of mozilla.org is is synomyous to should be mozilla.org is
synonymous to
line 715: instead of At mozila.org, the should be At mozilla.org the
line 716: instead of Bugzilla and cvs, and should be Bugzilla and cvs and
line 724: instead of our own, and should be our own and
line 729: instead of following, and should be following and
line 745: instead of or requests, or should be or requests or
line 748: instead of then, we write, review, and should be then we write, review and
line 761: instead of then then release should be then release
line 764: instead of described eariler, should be described earlier
line 789: instead of delegate responsibilities to should be delegate
responsabilities to
line 790: instead of By this, we establishes a should be By this we establish a
line 845: instead of documentation be written should be documentation to be written
line 856: instead of your one server to be be linked should be your own server
to be linked
line 872: missing link:
http://www.mozilla.org/webtools/bonsai/cvslog.cgi?file=mozilla-org/html/docs/mdp/faq.html&rev=&root=/cvsroot/

Comment 7

[Daniel Wang]

Attachment: FAQ

complete. pls review and comment

Comment 8

[Brant Gurganus]

All pronuncian guides for "historic" say that there is an "h" sound.  This 
includes descriptive dictionaries such as Webster's and prescriptive such as 
American Heritage.

For that reason, it should be "a historic accident", not "an historic accident".

Comment 9

[Brant Gurganus]

fantasai's e-mail address is missing its mailto: in the link.  The examples of 
bad subjects need quotation marks around them.

"cout" should be "count" in reference to not counting out Zope as a possible 
solution.  Regarding Zope, you might also mentione the mozilla-
[e-mail] list.

Comment 10

[Stephen Herr]

in 1.5 it should be "with other commitments" not "with other commitment" 
in 1.5 is it "new comers" or should it be "new-comers"?
in 1.6 it should be "you already know." instead of "you already have known."
in 2.1 it should be "that the reply should follow or be interspersed" instead of
"that reply should follow or intersperse"
in 2.2 it should be "newsgroups on different servers" instead of "newsgroups in
different servers"
in 2.3 it should be "newsgroup receive hundreds" instead of "newsgroup receives
hundreds"
in 2.5 question: "Can I post attachment here?" it should be "Can I post an
attachment here?"
in 2.5 is it "any thing" or "anything"
in 3.5 it should be "mozilla.org as yet" instead of "mozilla.org is yet"
in 3.5 to clarify comment #9 it should be "count" instead of "cout"
in 5.1 it should be "person would state" instead of "person may state"
in 5.1 it should be "bug but would never" instead of "bug but never"
in 5.3 it should be "change to a" instead of "change to as a"
in 5.5 the  http://www.mozilla.org/source.html link goes to
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/source.html instead.  Are we/should we be using
relative links or absolute URL's.
in 5.5 maybe a line feed right before "For general help on using CVS"
in 8.1 #1 it should be "either by checking" instead of "either by check"
in 8.1 #3 it should be "then we post" instead of "we then post" in order to be
parallel with #2
in 8.1 #4 it should be "are sections numbered" instead of "are section numbered"
in 8.1 #4 it should be "or establish test" instead of "or establishing test"
in 8.1 #7 it should be "following, performing, checking, looking and filing"
instead of "follow, perform, check, look and file" at the begining of the 5
lines process.
in 8.2 is "Naïvely"  the right word?  Shouldn't it be "Simply,"
in 8.2 should it be "state of affair" or "state of affairs"

Trash any comments you want, they are just my two cents.

Thanks for the work....  looks great....  and really helped educate me.  We need
this actually in/on the mozilla.org site up-front linked off the Getting
Involved <http://www.mozilla.org/get-involved.html> page or the "contribute
documentation" <http://www.mozilla.org/docs/contribute.html> page.  Thanks again.

Comment 11

[Daniel Wang]

Thanks for all the help. I'm in the process of merging the FAQ contents into
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/contribute.html , bug 64262, bug 172230, bug 17125,
and maybe others. The stuff on Help files probably needs another bug/url.
Anyway, for now, getting rid of this bug -> wonfix

Comment 12

[Daniel Wang]

Attachment: Documentation FAQ

Revive the doc. Should be updated but needs review.
This took too much time out of me, so someone please take it from here.

Comment 13

[Daniel Wang]

The last entry should have had something on
http://rheet.mozilla.org/webtools/bonsai/cvsqueryform.cgi . There may be other
things that I missed.

Comment 14

[David Boswell]

Moving to Mozilla Developer Center product for discussion.  If a redirect needs to be set up on www.mozilla.org, please open a new bug for www.mozilla.org.

Comment 15

[John Karahalis [:openjck]]

Automatically closing all bugs that have not been updated in a while. Please reopen if this is still important to you and has not yet been corrected.

Comment 16

[John Karahalis [:openjck]]

Reopening for review by Sheppy.

Comment 17

[Eric Shepherd [:sheppy]]

mozilla.documentation is not a developer doc newsgroup; we use dev-mdc for that. I assume this is SUMO but am not sure. If it's not, the SUMO folks should just close it. Reassigning.

Comment 18

[Verdi [:verdi] Best to slack me]

Documentation about end-user documentation (SUMO) is here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/improve-knowledge-base