Live data from Hacker News

Pretty RFC

pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Pretty RFC

#71
post #67

As it feels relevant, here's a site of mine that includes all the HTTP Status Codes in an easy referenceable format: http://httpstatus.es/

http://httpcats.heroku.com/

While httpstatus.es seems much more functional (the short descriptions on the index are a really nice touch), this one just made my day. Thanks!

Re: Pretty RFC

#72

Interesting. I thought I wanted something like this, but the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style. It's hard to understand the details of a low-level network protocol when you also have to remember their redefinitions of words like SHOULD, MUST, MAY, MIGHT, PERHAPS, QUITE POSSIBLY and sort through ASCII art that is split across multiple pages. (The standards are also excessively wordy and poorly organized.…

Have a look at the various other specs if you want something to compare the RFCs to.

I'll take the RFC format (short, to the point and really clear) over others any day.

Most of the times I feel as though those that write specs have received explicit instructions to make things as verbose as possible to justify the insane pricing of standards documents.

Archaic in this case is just another word for continuity and that's not a bad thing. Imagine every RFC hopping on to the latest bandwagon in terms of presentation, powerpoints, pdfs, html animated images and so on. It would be a cacophony, now it is just the minimal amount of information required to implement something. It's great in a minimalist way.

Re: Pretty RFC

#73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment has no place at the top of the page. > the problem with RFCs is the archaic writing style I'll admit, reading standards is more difficult than reading regular prose, it is nearly impossible to use language precisely without getting too verbose. Languages, and English especially, are full of little ambiguities; even simple words like "or" have more than one meaning! This doesn't quite cut it when it comes…

Let's take a look. Oxford says "should" implies "used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"[0]. That sure does not sound like "aren't required to" to me. Sure enough, if you look into "must" [1] you see that it is defined as "be obliged to; should". Maybe you shouldn't be chiding people implying how simple English is when you're not so solid on it yourself, especially when you've given a whole treatise in you…

There relevant definition of these words does not come from the dictionary. Most RFCs say which RFC they pull from, for instance, RFC2119: http://pretty-rfc.herokuapp.com/RFC2119

It's right there in the first couple of sections, usually.

Re: Pretty RFC

#74
Suggestion: change the linked email addresses to a graphical representation. It may not help much but this lowers the barrier a bit too much for some clueless newbie to 'click on the link to email for support'. RFCs have fairly limited visibility and that's why those addresses are on there, if you significantly increase the visibility then you should probably build in a small barrier before the contact info can be used rather than to make it super easy.

Re: Pretty RFC

#75

As it feels relevant, here's a site of mine that includes all the HTTP Status Codes in an easy referenceable format: http://httpstatus.es/

your site is helpful for me,thank you for letting me know it
Post reply on HN