- From: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:52:07 -0800
- To: Murray Maloney <murray@muzmo.com>
- Cc: Philip TAYLOR <Philip-and-LeKhanh@Royal-Tunbridge-Wells.Org>, Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>, HTML WG <public-html@w3.org>
On Jan 28, 2009, at 8:49 AM, Murray Maloney wrote: > > At 05:00 AM 1/28/2009 -0800, Maciej Stachowiak wrote: >> [...] >> But if there are multiple documents that separately normatively >> specify the same thing, then it is equally possible that they >> disagree >> and therefore at least one of the two is wrong. If one reference is >> normative and the other is not, then it is at least clear which is >> authoritative when they disagree. > > I like your logic and agree completely. Unfortunately, you left out > a subsequent consequence, to wit: it remains unclear which is correct. > > Having to keep two documents synchrounously correct is certainly > going to require some QA effort, but that will also yield a quality > product. That is a fair point. It's even possible for even a single document to be incorrect; that is why specifications at times publish errata. And indeed engaged implementors will often take planned corrections as more authoritative than the standing specification text. But I think normative text having some sort of drafting error or unexpected consequence is a different kind of problem than a conflict between two normative texts. Regards, Maciej
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 23:52:50 UTC