On Monday, 26 March 2012 at 21:40, 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"
Can you provide some examples of what you mean? This seems a little out of the
blue?
>
> I happen to disagree with the truth of this, based on my personal experience
> both with spec writing and with implementation/use of specs, but I would be
> curious to see who agrees with this idea or not.
>
> The case in point is an instance of a possible ambiguity in a spec because a
> particular assumption/convention is not documented;
Which one?
> i.e., an assumption that something isn't allowed even though it isn't
> explicitly disallowed. While I agree it is, in general, impossible (or at
> least impractical) to document all disallowances, I do believe it is
> important to document important disallowances, particular when there are
> concerns raised about spec ambiguity.
>
I guess it's a case by case thing. But generally, if the spec is written with
a "not in spec, not allowed" state machine, then it would hold.
--
Marcos Caceres
http://datadriven.com.au
