W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > May 2004

Re: Percentage height meaurements./ box-sizing

From: Mikko Rantalainen <mira@cc.jyu.fi>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 01:48:31 +0300
Message-ID: <40BA64BF.4040204@cc.jyu.fi>
To: www-style@w3.org

Boris Zbarsky / 2004-05-28 18:53:

> Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
>> IMO, the most strict spec one can give is a full (reference) 
>> implementation; that is, everything that produces exactly the
>> same result is compliant, anything else isn't.
> Which means you have to reverse-engineer the reference
> implementation, basically?

I understand 'reverse-engineering' as reconstructing "blue prints"
from finished product. Reference implementation (source code) is an
*exact* blue print description of only allowed behavior [1]. Sure, 
it isn't in English, but it's far from reverse-engineering.

> Oh, and would "bug fixes" to the reference implementation be
> allowed?  ;)

As I said, that's the "most strict spec". One can have bugs in any
spec, it's only that the bugs in reference implementation can be
more easily found than from a human language written description.

The point I was trying to make was that if Andrew couldn't come up
with a spec that described the requested feature well enough, he
could just publish his reference implementation instead. Reference
implementation surely has some parts thought out (because it doesn't
segfault;-) and we can then discuss if it is worth to include in W3C

[1] (I wouldn't call most of the W3C specs strict or exact as 
there're always some parts of the recommendations under discussion. 
Aren't those part that require further discussion "bugs"? Or are 
those just because of incorrect or unclear documentation?)

Received on Sunday, 30 May 2004 18:48:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:13 UTC