- From: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:30:37 -0600
- To: "Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACQ=j+dDWV-SLXWxqeGT_sXrjd4grirWRYaJVHFQ_Kzk54uyJg@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Kang-Hao (Kenny) Lu < kennyluck@csail.mit.edu> wrote: > (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. > The specific context this came up in is [1]. [1] https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16299 > > 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. > A WebApps spec editor made this assertion to me "if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec". I did (do) not agree. I wondered what others think. The specific context is how to interpret "associated with" and whether it means one-to-one or not. Since the spec doesn't define "associated with", I argue that it need not be interpreted as one-to-one. However, the editor argued that if the spec doesn't say that it can be interpreted as non-injective (not one-to-one), then this interpretation is not allowed.
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:31:26 UTC