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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:51 +0100
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7E430C5722F94CF5A0EB0AFAC03A1125@marcosc.com>



On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 23:55, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com (mailto:glenn@skynav.com)> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com (mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com)>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com (mailto: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.
> 


I guess it would be best if people just comment directly on the following (to cut to the chase):
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16299#c3
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:01:23 GMT

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