W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2012

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:46:37 +0100
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E773BC94CCF7488B82AA8A7B4816E6A0@marcosc.com>



On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 21:40, Glenn Adams wrote:

> It has been stated to me that, at least for "open web platform standards", the following statement is true and is shared by the majority:
> 
> "if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec"
Can you provide some examples of what you mean? This seems a little out of the blue?   
> 
> I happen to disagree with the truth of this, based on my personal experience both with spec writing and with implementation/use of specs, but I would be curious to see who agrees with this idea or not. 
> 
> The case in point is an instance of a possible ambiguity in a spec because a particular assumption/convention is not documented;
Which one?  
> i.e., an assumption that something isn't allowed even though it isn't explicitly disallowed. While I agree it is, in general, impossible (or at least impractical) to document all disallowances, I do believe it is important to document important disallowances, particular when there are concerns raised about spec ambiguity. 
> 

 I guess it's a case by case thing. But generally, if the spec is written with a "not in spec, not allowed" state machine, then it would hold. 

-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 20:47:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:50 GMT