[www-qa] Interpreting the Constitution (Was: After the Workshop, still plenty of options to consider)

Rob Lanphier writes:
>Using a U.S. Constitutional metaphor, you have the consitution, which
>is really a pretty terse document, given its scope.  You then have the
>case history surrounding the constitution.  The constitution itself
>trumps the case history, but the case history is still very, very
>important in the interpretation of the constitution.

As the person who introduced this metaphor at the Workshop, I must
remind you all that I don't want this carried too far. I can agree with
Rob's statement above, but our overall goal for every Recommendation is
that it must be a totally complete and airtight specification with no
internal inconsistencies. This standard of perfection won't be
attained in the real world, but is nevertheless a correct statement of
the goal. The document should say everything that needs to be said, and
it should say it in such a way that there no need to access discussions
that led to its creation. When there is a shortfall, the WG should
issue errata that bring the document closer to the goal. (I think that's
the closest analog to the "case history" Rob mentions.)

I certainly wasn't "implying that [including normative examples means]
one doesn't need a normative, generalized statement from which the
behavior can be derived" and I think my reply to Lofton makes that clear.
.................David Marston

Received on Thursday, 12 April 2001 18:09:47 UTC