| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 02:43:57PM +0100, Thomas R??sner wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring schrieb: |
| 3 |
> >On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 04:13:11AM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 04:04:37 +0000 Steve Long |
| 6 |
> >><slong@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >>| > I'm saying that until there is an independent implementation, the |
| 8 |
> >>| > specification is worthless and will contain huge numbers of errors. |
| 9 |
> >>| |
| 10 |
> >>| Seriously? Without an implementation, your spec of what should happen |
| 11 |
> >>| will have loads of errors? |
| 12 |
> >> |
| 13 |
> >>Yes. It will describe what people think is allowed, rather than what |
| 14 |
> >>really is. |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> >If you're writing the spec to match what "people think", why limit the |
| 18 |
> ># of folks involved? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Uhm, I think you completely inverted what Ciaran meant. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Don't think so; making the point that if attempting to write the spec |
| 23 |
to target what 'people think'... that's rather subjective, and it's |
| 24 |
easy for a subgroup of people to get ideas that don't match what |
| 25 |
others think. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Possible I'm being too literal, if so feel free to correct me. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives