[Zope] Reply To:

[J C Lawrence]

On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 18:07:11 +1100 
Curtis Maloney <curtis@umd.com.au> wrote:

> Hey.. by the way... has anyone else noticed the prolific nature of
> vagueness in RFCs?

Its the old game:

  Only what is stated is defined.  

  Some things are stated to be "implementation dependent".

  Everything else is undefined and might involve green hairy
  martians coming out of someone's nose.  Or not.  Or both.

RFCs are a little better (or worse, YMMV) than standards documents
(which aren't really written in english per se), as they often
concentrate more on "intent" than definition.

-- 
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw@kanga.nu
----------(*)                              Other: coder@kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--