- From: Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 06:23:08 +0800
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- CC: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
(12/03/27 5:43), Glenn Adams wrote: > my position is that, unless somewhere it is documented what the convention > "associated with" means, that it is (1) ambiguous, and (2) can be > interpreted in any of the above four ways; This is still lacking context, but in general I agree with you. > this also goes to the issue of whether "if it is not documented in the spec > it is not allowed" applies; my position is that if the spec is ambiguous > (allows for multiple reasonable readings), then it is allowed (even though > that may not have been the author's intent); Agreed. (12/03/27 4:40), 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" What context was this statement in? For the spec for API A, you can't really write a test that asserts the non-existence of API B of course. Cheers, Kenny
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:23:38 UTC