- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:46:37 +0100
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
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 http://datadriven.com.au
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 20:47:08 UTC