Textpattern CMS support forum
You are not logged in. Register | Login | Help
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Pages: 1
FAQ needs updating
Just saw this FAQ on using tags within tags – the post needs updating as it states that nesting tag in tags is not possible, which of course it now is with 4.07 :-)
Edit: Oh, and please delete the thread once the FAQ is updated ;-)
Last edited by jstubbs (2008-12-06 23:00:33)
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
Better delete this thread too, then.
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
Updated, guys. I’d redirect the references to the weblog post re: tag parser to a solid Textbook page once it exists.
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
I would make it clear (on that FAQ) that the nested tag support is 4.0.7+.
There may be people out (just end users) there using old versions.
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
As we are no historians, we will strive to document the current state of affairs. E.g., there’s a good reason why there’s no FAQ entry on “Can I have custom 404 pages in Txp?” although there was a time when this was a perfectly valid FAQ.
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
Touché! You are right.
And also, it is made clear on the linked article about the new parser.
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
wet wrote:
I’d redirect the references to the weblog post re: tag parser to a solid Textbook page once it exists.
The page is ready and waiting from Tag Basics (as well suggested by ruud). A little mashing up of the weblog articles (1 and 2) and FAQ 160 into a robust, concise wiki page might be the way to go. (Then you could get rid of that FAQ.)
As a documentation thorn, I tend to poke these issues though it’s not my intention to draw blood, but this is a good example of why FAQs are better in the wiki to begin with. We had this discussion with zem back when he initiated the FAQs and the only plausible reason he gave for the quiet initiative was to ensure the integrity of the information (i.e., written by developers only).
I’ve never really agreed with the argument because I think it’s a false concern. For one thing, there’s a lot of aware community members who not only point details out if info is amiss (this thread and many others should be a testament to that), but could very well make the needed updates if given the opportunity. If the FAQ were in TextBook to begin with, it would:
- be good for documentation consolidation on a macro scale (i.e., one docs location)
- be good for documentation consolidation on a micro scale (see 1)
- prevent threads like this because more folks could make the changes autonomously
- give even more sense to the FAQ translation efforts already in TxB
- prevent making “historians” out of the developers
I can’t think of anybody (for any reason) going into TextBook and corrupting an FAQ that is already written for no reason, and this behavior could easily be discouraged with a little FAQ editing statement in the intro text somewhere. (And the wiki has diffing and rollback so it’s not like anything would ever be lost anyway.)
1 – I think even Jakob Nielsen would tell you that an effective FAQ should have a limit, and something like a max of 25 FAQs is probably in the ballpark area before usability goes south. Txp FAQs are what 2,000? (A slight exaggeration but you see my point.) Many FAQs are very short, a couple paragraphs at most. There’s instances where you could consolidate several FAQs on a single wiki page, such as those dealing with “error messages.” For example, there might be a page called Txp Error Messages. Each relevant FAQ title is an h2 element on the page, and the wiki auto creates the nice in-page ToC at top of page as a result — automatic navigation. This combined with the categorization idea already discussed, and you begin to have a very usable and manageable FAQ.
Just thinking outloud.
Last edited by Destry (2008-12-08 06:00:14)
Offline
Re: FAQ needs updating
I think the difference between a manual created by users versus one created by developers is that the users document how it works, while the developer documents how it should work. Ideally, both give the same result. In reality there are bugs, including those that some might interpret as features.
Offline
Pages: 1