FAQ Topic - Why do some posts have <FAQENTRY> in them ?

[FAQ server]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - Why do some posts have <FAQENTRY> in them ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRY> in your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion. A Draft Proposal
for the FAQ is requested and appreciated.

The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in
conjunction with a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should
also not be literally quoted in replies, instead it should be
partly obscured as, e.g. <FAQ**TRY> or similar.


===
Postings such as this are automatically sent once a day. Their
goal is to answer repeated questions, and to offer the content to
the community for continuous evaluation/improvement. The complete
comp.lang.javascript FAQ is at http://www.jibbering.com/faq/.
The FAQ workers are a group of volunteers.

 

[Evertjan.]

FAQ server wrote on 21 jan 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FAQ Topic - Why do some posts have <FAQENTRY> in them ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

If a poster feels that the question they are answering should be
covered in the FAQ, placing <FAQENTRY> in your post lets the FAQ
robot collect the messages for easy review and inclusion. A Draft
Proposal for the FAQ is requested and appreciated.

The <FAQENTRY> should not be used in posts except in
conjunction with a suggestion/proposal for the FAQ. It should
also not be literally quoted in replies, instead it should be
partly obscured as, e.g. <FAQ**TRY> or similar.

So what about this post,
will it set that robot into an endless loop,
laughing it's guts out?
;-)

Or should the entry better be better defined
as having to be on position 1 of a new line?
[Proper quoting will take care of the replies then.]

Is the closing </FAQENTRY> purely window dressing?
Is the offensive uppercase realy neccessary?

 

[Randy Webb]

Evertjan. said the following on 1/21/2007 4:41 AM:

FAQ server wrote on 21 jan 2007 in comp.lang.javascript:


So what about this post,
will it set that robot into an endless loop,
laughing it's guts out?
;-)

Nah, it gives him a headache and then I have to hunt down headache
medication for a box full of electrical components. To date, the best
thing that solves that headache is a rubber mallet and 15 minutes of
beating on the box

Or should the entry better be better defined
as having to be on position 1 of a new line?
[Proper quoting will take care of the replies then.]

Honestly, it makes no difference as I am doing them manually until I see
or find a robot to do it for me.

Is the closing </FAQENTRY> purely window dressing?

Not for me it isn't. It marks the end of FAQ thoughts if it is in the
middle of a post. But it doesn't really matter whether it is there or
not, but being there makes it semi easier and if a robot were to be
found - or written - then the closing tag would tell the robot where to
stop at.

Is the offensive uppercase realy neccessary?

Not sure why it was done in uppercase.

 

[Dr J R Stockton]

In comp.lang.javascript message <[email protected]>

Is the closing </FAQENTRY> purely window dressing?
Is the offensive uppercase realy neccessary?

The uppercase seems to me to be helpful to the eye - the tag *should*
stand out. Even if the Maintainer gets an automatic means of finding
such articles independent of case, it's still desirable that others
notice that a suggestion has been made - they can then refrain from
repeating it immediately.