Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!mordor!lll-tis!ptsfa!rtech!sid
From: sid@rtech.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.wanted,comp.dcom.lans,comp.mail.misc
Subject: Re: X.400 Mail Package
Message-ID: <928@rtech.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Jun-87 20:23:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: rtech.928
Posted: Thu Jun 18 20:23:37 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jun-87 06:48:44 EDT
References: <289@rabbit1.UUCP> <220@idacrd.UUCP> <493@rlgvax.UUCP> <959@mtunb.ATT.COM> <1875@lsuc.UUCP>
Reply-To: sid@rtech.UUCP (Sid Shapiro)
Followup-To: misc.misc
Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA
Lines: 25
Xref: utgpu comp.sources.wanted:1204 comp.dcom.lans:495 comp.mail.misc:300

In article <1875@lsuc.UUCP> dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) writes:
>In article <959@mtunb.ATT.COM> dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes:
>>>		 When are those standards
>>>writers going to start writing documentation that is isn't so abstract,
>>>terse, and hard to understand?
>>
>>	Probably never;  I'll even defend that's as it should be.
>>	The purpose of the standard is unambiguous precision.
>
>Dave is correct on this.  A standard in the computer industry,
>once accepted, plays the same role as legislation in society.
>Much legislation is difficult to read by non-lawyers, a fact which
>causes some to criticize it.  But it's the same issue.
>
>I don't expect non-lawyers to be able to read the Canadian
>Income Tax Act, although millions of people are affected by it.

(Since my question really brings up another subject, I have redirected
discussion to a more appropriate new group.)

Why is it too much to expect the "common" person to be able to
understand laws?  He must live under them.  Consider the idea that if
a law is too complex for him to understand than the law is too complex
period and should be simplified.  Just a random thought...
/ Sid /