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

Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:55:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDAzvd8_Xny9ch11BVfKsqTcN_dY4+_GafR9pAGeg-qFrA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote:
>>> "if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec"
>>
>> The statement you quoted is more or less accurate.  Behavior that
>> isn't specced is almost certain to not be interoperable.  If the spec
>> is incomplete or unclear in some aspect, that's a spec bug, not an
>> opportunity for implementations to make up their own behavior based on
>> what the engineer thinks is reasonable at the time they're writing the
>> code.
>
> however, that is exactly what implementers do every day... especially those
> not closely connected with the spec process

Of course they do.  Reality isn't perfect.  That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

That said, I agree with your point that documenting important points,
even if it's technically not required, is a good thing if there is a
reasonable possibility of confusion.

~TJ
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:55:48 GMT

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