- From: Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 00:00:51 +0100
- To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Cc: Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com>, WebApps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 23:55, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com (mailto:glenn@skynav.com)> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com (mailto:jackalmage@gmail.com)> > > wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com (mailto: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. > I guess it would be best if people just comment directly on the following (to cut to the chase): https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16299#c3
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 23:01:23 UTC