S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > > I imagine it's a lot easier to rattle off the numbers when he's got > them either filed or bookmarked by category and date...
No. The only thing I have locally is the SQL standard. For the rest I have Google. > but I have a hard time > understanding how anyone has the simple time to _read_ them in the > first place. I'm a very fast reader. And I find it much easier to remember something that I have read as something that I have heard. And I don't remember everything, just enough to Google it efficiently :) > The language is so obfuscated (I'm convinced in many > cases / ways intentionally so) that I could make a full-time job of > just reading them. I swear if they can use 5 concise words to describe > something with no ambiguity, they'll use 50. Not at all. I am following the IETF RADEXT mailinglist dealing with extensions to the RADIUS protocol and the one thing that is foremost on everybodies mind is avoiding ambiguity. It may seem that many RFCs are intentionally obfuscated but they really are not. Every word is there for a reason. Jochem ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how to get a fax number that sends and receives faxes using your current email address http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=64 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:157594 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
