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 /