- From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
- Date: Sun, 07 Feb 2010 10:51:44 -0500
- To: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- CC: "public-html@w3.org" <public-html@w3.org>
On 2/7/10 10:19 AM, Julian Reschke wrote: > On the other hand, there's also lazy spec writing (in general, just not > over here). For instance, many authors - when they link to other specs - > apparently are too lazy to make their references precise (why should I > add a section reference when the reader can figure that out him/herself?) Worse yet, in the case of web-related specs, much of the time the linked-to spec is not compatible with the spec that linked to it. Sometimes as a matter of pragmatics, sometimes as a simple logical inconsistency due to using the "main idea" of the linked-to spec but changing all the details (URIs in HTML4 are an example of the former; XLink in SVG an example of the latter). These problems is so widespread in web-related specs that the return on time invested in reading the linked spec is, in my experience, negative on average. That is, reading it actually makes it _harder_ to implement the linking spec "correctly". -Boris
Received on Sunday, 7 February 2010 15:52:19 UTC