On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 04:56:11PM +0200, Jeroen Frijters wrote: > David Gilbert wrote: > > The theory is easy: Mauve should test AN implementation against THE > > spec. > > Pardon me for beating my favorite horse again, but this assumes that the > spec is somehow more valuable than code and/or that the spec doesn't > contain bugs. In the real world both are buggy and users rarely care > about the spec, especially when their app works on the RI, but not on > our implementation. > > Allow me to rebut another issue that often comes up: "We'll make it spec > compliant and when someone finds an application that depends on the RI > behavior then we'll copy that behavior." > > IMNSHO, this is actually a very dumb approach. It makes our > implementation worse than the RI in two ways: > > 1) Apps coded against the RI (possibly) don't work out of the box. > 2) Apps coded against our implementation (and spec) run the risk of > breaking in the future when we randomly decide to start emulating the RI > instead of the spec. > > Of course, things aren't black and white and issues should be decided on > a case by case basis, but considering the spec holy is not doing anybody > any service. > Being someone who'd consider the specs holy in the past, I'd agree with that assesment. cheers, dalibor topic > Regards, > Jeroen
