Re: informal survey - on spec philosophy

(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);


(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.


Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:23:38 UTC