- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:55:00 -0700
- To: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>
- Cc: WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: >>> "if it isn't written in the spec, it isn't allowed by the spec" >> >> The statement you quoted is more or less accurate. Behavior that >> isn't specced is almost certain to not be interoperable. If the spec >> is incomplete or unclear in some aspect, that's a spec bug, not an >> opportunity for implementations to make up their own behavior based on >> what the engineer thinks is reasonable at the time they're writing the >> code. > > however, that is exactly what implementers do every day... especially those > not closely connected with the spec process Of course they do. Reality isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. That said, I agree with your point that documenting important points, even if it's technically not required, is a good thing if there is a reasonable possibility of confusion. ~TJ
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 22:55:48 UTC