Newsgroups: rec.arts.int-fiction
Path: nntp.gmd.de!Dortmund.Germany.EU.net!Germany.EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!torn!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!svanegmo
From: svanegmo@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Stephen van Egmond)
Subject: Re: It's that FAQing Jools again!
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <DEt2un.94E@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 18:47:11 GMT
References: <19950908.004110.99@arnod.arnod.demon.co.uk> <42v9o2$hol@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: cantor.math.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 17

This is an interesting point.  I don't think the FAQ should make
particular recommendations, and should remain factual.  The facts
themselves are often enough to make a recommendation.  In addition, the
two frontrunners in terms of discussion level in rai-f have a comparison
FAQ already written for them. 

The facts that are of relevance in judging an authoring system are used 
rather nicely in the TADS-v-Inform FAQ.  Questions such as portability, 
support, required level of programming knowledge, supported operating 
systems, resource requirements, distributability of produced games, and 
so on.  Much of this information should be available in the 
documentation.  It should be enough to bring out as much objective 
information available on them (including information on which ones appear 
in discussion here in raif frequently) and allow the reader to pick.

/Steve

