Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 21:40, Glenn Adams wrote:

> It has been stated to me that, at least for "open web platform standards", the following statement is true and is shared by the majority:
> "if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec"
Can you provide some examples of what you mean? This seems a little out of the blue?   
> I happen to disagree with the truth of this, based on my personal experience both with spec writing and with implementation/use of specs, but I would be curious to see who agrees with this idea or not. 
> The case in point is an instance of a possible ambiguity in a spec because a particular assumption/convention is not documented;
Which one?  
> i.e., an assumption that something isn't allowed even though it isn't explicitly disallowed. While I agree it is, in general, impossible (or at least impractical) to document all disallowances, I do believe it is important to document important disallowances, particular when there are concerns raised about spec ambiguity. 

 I guess it's a case by case thing. But generally, if the spec is written with a "not in spec, not allowed" state machine, then it would hold. 

Marcos Caceres

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 20:47:08 UTC