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 23:29:25 +0100
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C0F000FB0AC44198BD45998C1BEC6BD7@marcosc.com>


On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 22:43, Glenn Adams wrote:

> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com (mailto:w3c@marcosc.com)> wrote:
> > On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 21:40, Glenn Adams wrote:
> 
> there are two issues here: 
> 
> (1) whether the spec is ambiguous or not (permits multiple interpretations), and
> (2) whether there is an unwritten convention (if the spec doesn't say it then it is not allowed) that applies or not
> 
> my position is that ambiguities should be avoided wherever possible and that important conventions should be documented; further, i'm not sure I would agree with a convention of "if the spec doesn't say it then it is not allowed"; or at least, that is the point of this thread, to see what others think... 
I don't know without a concrete example - just show us the actual text that is bugging you (I'm sure the Editor of the spec you are referring to won't mind the additional eyes!). 

As an editor, if someone emails me and says "hey Marcos, I'm coding/reviewing your spec, but I'm having a hard time understanding this bit X." I try to do my best to fix the spec (through rephrasing or adding an example, etc.). I think that's what editors are supposed to do: make things really clear for their intended audience and friends in the WG (i.e., write specs as you would want specs written for you).  


-- 
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:29:59 GMT

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