Edu 2071 remove the general section of faqs

[franrob-projects]

This PR removes the general FAQ section and adds comprehensive documentation improvements across multiple areas of the platform:

Can I use Ably for audio and video streaming or images and file sharing?

How can I set up different environments in Ably?

Is there a limit to the length of the ClientId or Channel name?

How can I subscribe to messages using REST only SDKs?

CSP Rejection to internet-up.ably-realtime.com/is-the-internet-up.txt

Are the Message and Data Transfer Limits Enforced Separately?

Should I reduce the REST publish timeout?

Do you have a terms of service?

How can I alert a user to subscribe to a channel?

Addresses reviewer feedback

---

Redirects: General FAQ

FAQ: https://faqs.ably.com/general

Jira: EDU-2071

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on this repository.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

✨ Finishing touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

• Create PR with unit tests
• Post copyable unit tests in a comment
• Commit unit tests in branch EDU-2071-remove-the-general-section-of-fa-qs

Tip

📝 Customizable high-level summaries are now available in beta!

You can now customize how CodeRabbit generates the high-level summary in your pull requests — including its content, structure, tone, and formatting.

• Provide your own instructions using the high_level_summary_instructions setting.
• Format the summary however you like (bullet lists, tables, multi-section layouts, contributor stats, etc.).
• Use high_level_summary_in_walkthrough to move the summary from the description to the walkthrough section.

Example instruction:

"Divide the high-level summary into five sections:

1. 📝 Description — Summarize the main change in 50–60 words, explaining what was done.
2. 📓 References — List relevant issues, discussions, documentation, or related PRs.
3. 📦 Dependencies & Requirements — Mention any new/updated dependencies, environment variable changes, or configuration updates.
4. 📊 Contributor Summary — Include a Markdown table showing contributions:
   | Contributor | Lines Added | Lines Removed | Files Changed |
5. ✔️ Additional Notes — Add any extra reviewer context.
   Keep each section concise (under 200 words) and use bullet or numbered lists for clarity."

Note: This feature is currently in beta for Pro-tier users, and pricing will be announced later.

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands and usage tips.}

[m-hulbert]

I don't think it's correct to repeat these from the website, as we're just duplicating the content. If we think it's important to still reference them (maybe look at the relative popularity of the FAQ) then it should be an FAQ that links out to the website.

You could also test 'Ask Ably' and see what that currently picks up (I suspect it will just land them on the original terms of serivce, rather than going via the FAQs).

[franrob-projects]

976330d

[m-hulbert]

Where have the FAQs come from in this fixup? I don't think we should be trying to parse or shorten these at all.

Let's add the question to the pricing FAQ and link out.

[m-hulbert]

• I think this needs to be retained in the short term.
• I think this is covered to some extent, but we should also be covering some of this info on the history page and linking back to the explanation to CGO.

[m-hulbert]

Where have the FAQs come from in this fixup? I don't think we should be trying to parse or shorten these at all.

Let's add the question to the pricing FAQ and link out.

[franrob-projects]

@m-hulbert Please see the update in the updated commit comments in the PR description at the top for -> Addresses reviewer feedback