<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17104" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=028292122-05122011>It's called "marketing" ;>)</SPAN></FONT></DIV><BR>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> framers-bounces@lists.frameusers.com
[mailto:framers-bounces@lists.frameusers.com] <B>On Behalf Of
</B>hessiansx4<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, December 05, 2011 5:56 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
framers@lists.frameusers.com<BR><B>Subject:</B> documentation best
practices<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000; FONT-FAMILY: verdana, helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fff">
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto">I could use some insight into a situation I haven't
encountered before today: how does one best respond to a request (read: order)
to include something in their product's documentation about a functionality that
will not be released with the upcoming release (it will still be in
development) but is hoped to be ready "shortly" (whatever that
means) after the product is released.</DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"> </DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto">I've politely pointed out that industry best practice
is to document what IS as opposed to what WILL BE and that certain liabilities
might be incurred if promises are made and then something goes wrong. </DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto"> </DIV>
<DIV style="RIGHT: auto">Any thoughts?<VAR
id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>