*> *> Watching engineers implement specs as code I note that most use *> secondary sources such as O'Rielly in preference to the supposedly *> authoritative IETF specs. The lack of readability is a major reason. *> *> This is not the case with W3C specs. *> *> There is very little point spending time perfecting text that is only *> ever going to be read by the author of the O'Rielly nutshell book. *> *> The real standard is the bits on the real wire. If those are coded from *> O'Rielly then O'Rielly, not the IETF is the standards setter. *> *> I don't recall seeing ASCII art in O'Rielly books. *> I am certainly not going to claim that ASCII art is God's Gift to Implementers, but I have a hard time believing that the alleged superiority of the O'Reilly specs is due to the artistic quality of their diagrams, as opposed, say, to the quality of their prose. *> *> Leave the ASCII art for recreational use. If you want to be regarded as *> a professional organization then make sure that every communication *> looks professional. ASCII art screams 'amateur'. I'm sorry, that is nonsense. Was Jon Postel an amateur? Fancy pictures CAN be a help for some explanatory purposes, but they can also distract from a poorly written description. Bob Braden _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf