- From: john gerent <johnnycov@thectkeep.com>
- Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2001 22:59:18 -0500
- To: site-comments@w3.org
Hello: First read about the Internet ca. 1980. Dismissed it; was a systems programmer at a Data Center with a 2000 terminal network and managed a 30 terminal Time Sharing System. Have been reading RFC's to erase the ignorance accumulated over 20 years. RFC's are as informative as IBM manuals. Their major drawback being they are written for a broad range of situations and usages. The IBM manuals were more narrow in focus so were more easily understood. Have read over 30 RFC's in the last six months. Then I encountered the W3C HTML 4.01 document. Great Job! This should become a touchstone for RFC's. Prolific, meaningful examples, syntax structure layouts (Element & Attributes in a shaded box), editorial interpretation (standard specifications not being followed in the real world so here is what is going to happen in response). links to The Glossary of Terms and Links to the referenced Document and/or Organization, Active Links in the Short and Detailed Table of Contents: all lessen the drudge of research. After my first month of reading RFC's. I choose to suffered ignorance rather than scrolling or switching to do "out of document" research. While the editorial comments in RFC's are usually constricted in scope (as well they probably should be given the larger scope of influence and the usually more narrow limits of an individuals breath of experience and knowledge) the remaining improvement to technical documents SHOULD be implemented within the IEFT world. I would proffer the HTML 4.01 document as a paragon fitting for the Federally funded technical education efforts associated with Internet 2. If all the IEFT documents were like W3C's HTML 4.01, I wouldn't still be out of work. Great Job. john gerent
Received on Saturday, 3 February 2001 23:09:27 UTC