On Mon Nov 29 21:57:55 2010, Tobias Markmann wrote:
On 29.11.10 21:11, Dave Cridland wrote:
> Isn't that what we're trying to find out? Stating so in advance
would
> spoil all our fun...
Ahh, right..totally forgot that we're here for *that* fun. :)
There's four cases that are interesting in this area, anyway.
1) We think we stick to the spec, but we missed *that* bit.
2) We think we stick to the spec. That bit doesn't mean *that*.
3) We think we stick to the spec. That bit everyone else is relying
on is *optional*.
4) We think we don't stick to the spec here. Nor does anyone else.
And it still works fine...
5) We think we don't stick to the spec here, and we think it doesn't
matter. But X needs that behaviour.
Of these, for the XSF, the last is least interesting - not working is
the expected outcome of not sticking to specs. The second and third
are probably most interesting, but the fourth is quite fun to
discover as well.
For implementors, the first is usually most interesting.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
_______________________________________________
JDev mailing list
Forum: http://www.jabberforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=20
Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev
Unsubscribe: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
