> On 7 Jun 2016, at 17:56, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rather than changing the spec based on anecdotal evidence, […] > > It seems irresponsible to assume now that nobody anywhere needs > it.
What assumption are you talking about? Markus and Nova provided actual examples of implementations not following the spec, and so far no one has been able to provide even a single counter-example. > There must have been some basis for including the "is" case in the first > place. Now *that* sounds like an assumption to me.
