> To sum up a bit as I see it: RMS's arguments about technical
> documentation are sound, imo. Do the same arguments apply to
> standards? If not, what is the difference between technical
> documentation and a standard.
I don't think they do, because in a fundamental way, while standards
are technical _documents_, I think they are more like personal opinion
than program documentation (which is mainly what I see RMS's arguments
applying to).
Program documentation describes how something DOES works. It is
important to be able to change it, if it becomes necessary to change
the behavior of the program (or if the documentation and the program
just don't match). If a manual is unclear on an issue, you can consult
the program itself (an impartial, objective criteria) to see what the
"proper meaning" is.
Standards documents describe how something SHOULD work. It does not
necessarily have any basis in reality. It doesn't have to. RFC821
doesn't say "Mail program X does Y", it says "If all mail programs on
the internet do Y, we will have reliable mail service". That it took
years before any mail program actually fully complied with the standard
is immaterial to the position adopted by the author of RFC821
(Johnathan Postel). If a standard is unclear on an issue, there is
nothing to consult except the opinions of yourself and others
(including the author, if you can). Even another "compliant" program's
behavior is just a reflection of that author's interpretation of the
standard.
Program documentation may have bugs relating to technical content:
What it says program X does may not reflect the reality, but it should.
Standards documents cannot have bugs relating to technical content,
since it doesn't reflect a reality, only a "goal".
Both can of course have bugs relating to presentation (including
typographical or formatting errors).
>
>
> Guy
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
