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

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:23:08 +0800
Message-ID: <4F70EC4C.2080409@csail.mit.edu>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
(12/03/27 5:43), Glenn Adams wrote:
> my position is that, unless somewhere it is documented what the convention
> "associated with" means, that it is (1) ambiguous, and (2) can be
> interpreted in any of the above four ways;

This is still lacking context, but in general I agree with you.

> this also goes to the issue of whether "if it is not documented in the spec
> it is not allowed" applies; my position is that if the spec is ambiguous
> (allows for multiple reasonable readings), then it is allowed (even though
> that may not have been the author's intent);

Agreed.

(12/03/27 4:40), 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"

What context was this statement in? For the spec for API A, you can't
really write a test that asserts the non-existence of API B of course.


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:23:38 GMT

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