On 3/28/2012 1:05 AM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
The general position of this group, indeed the main reason for its
existence, is that specs should reflect reality and that a spec that
is deliberately misleading in terms of what it takes to achieve
interoperable behavior is not much better than no spec at all (and is
arguably worse than no spec at all).
You are, of course, entitled to disagree, but I would like to
understand the reasons why you think deliberately misleading specs are
a good idea...
You are making the assertion that "deliberately misleading in terms of
what it takes to achieve interoperable behavior".
You have asked that the spec be changed so that developers will not make
mistakes with endianess.
And you and Robert have given reasons why you believe developers will
make many mistakes.
I brought up adding some additional text to aide developers...
What would it take, without changing the behavior of the current spec,
for it to contain terms that you do not feel are "deliberately misleading"?
I am certain that all parties would like the spec to be more clear on
this topic.
I brought forward the idea of adding an warning to the spec, for
developers, which you rebutted with statements suggesting that
developers will not read the spec.
Do you feel the spec is misleading implementers?
-Charles
