| 1 |
Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>>> | Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen |
| 4 |
>>>> | will have loads of errors? |
| 5 |
>>>> |
| 6 |
>>>> Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what |
| 7 |
>>>> really is. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Don't think so; making the point that if attempting to write the spec |
| 10 |
> to target what 'people think'... that's rather subjective, and it's |
| 11 |
> easy for a subgroup of people to get ideas that don't match what |
| 12 |
> others think. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Possible I'm being too literal, if so feel free to correct me. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Ok, try this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
>>>> Yes. [Without an implementation] It [the spec] will describe what |
| 20 |
people think is allowed, rather than what |
| 21 |
>>>> really is [allowed]. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That is how I understood Ciaran's comment. Which means you compleatly |
| 24 |
inverted it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards |
Archives