Re: [whatwg/url] It's not immediately clear that "URL syntax" and "URL parser" conflict (#118)

On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 11:44 -0700, sleevi wrote:
> @JohnMHarrisJr While you may object to the notion, Standards that do
> not reflect running code are not valuable. That's why the IETF
> standardization effort recognizes not just "rough consensus", but
> "running code". Standards which are purely idealistic and ignore the
> world as it is often have zero traction, while those that accurately
> capture the world provide an invaluable service, and reflect the
> world as it is.
> In any event, it sounds like you have broader disagreements with
> documenting "the world as it is," and those concerns don't apply just
> to this - it applies to things like HTML, CSS, or any of the other
> number of documents that reflect the "rough consensus and running
> code". It's almost certain that this bug is not the one to express
> your unhappiness with that, but hopefully it explains why you might
> have been confused.

Code should reflect standards, not the other way around. The point of
standardization is to provide instructions on what to implement, not to
base standards on implementation. Yes, I understand that standards are
often based on implementations, but not to the degree that we change
standards to reflect major implementations.


---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/whatwg/url/issues/118#issuecomment-218554931