Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> So? The program should still come with usage and configuration
>> documentation. Even then, the standard does not describe th e program
>> -- if the program does not do what the standard says, the program is
>> buggy, and should be changed -- not the standard. There is a big
>> difference between documentation for a program that may need to be
>> modified to match the behaviour, and a standard that should not be
>> changed.
Raul> So? If the program implements some standards, why can't those
Raul> standards be used as the first draft for that aspect of the
Raul> program's documentation?
So what? I don't care what the programs authours use as
documentation. They can use the phone book for all the impact
it has on the standard. If the program does not implement all the
standard, it is noted in the program docs (READ
/usr/doc/pdksh/NOTES.gz -- and see how it should be done).
Raul> You're saying that it doesn't even matter that the program be
Raul> documented? I'm surprised you're taking this tack.
I did not say that. If you cared to read the rest of my mail I
said:
Manoj> So? The program should still come with usage and configuration
Manoj> documentation.
See that? That was the first paragraph. Later on I go to say:
Manoj> The reference implementation should probably come with its
Manoj> own documentation talking about usage and configuration, if
Manoj> at all applicable.
So I have always said, any program has to have documentation,
whether or not it purports or alleges to implement a standard.
I *am* saying that it makes no difference to the standard. The
program comes with its own documentation (or not, in which case the
program shall have bug reports against it), that has nothing to do
with the standard itself.
It like saying that some one says they are law abiding, but
then they are caught stealing, and you go back and rewrite the law,
since they said they followed the law, and they stole, so of course
the law has to be changed.
Raul> Or maybe you're implying that the authors of the program have a
Raul> duty to re-write the concepts described in the standard, from
Raul> scratch but phrased differently so that it doesn't violate the
Raul> copyright on the standard?
It is always better to rewrite the language used in standards
in plain english. Perhaps fair use clauses come in effect? Especially
if the excerts are small enough? If the excerpts are very large, I
fail to see that you have followed the standard.
Can I say the following program is an incomplete implenetation
of POSIX 1003.2 and, quote the whole standard as an exception?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
int main (void) { return 0; }
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Raul> Or...?
You mean that becuase someone writes a buggy implementation of
a standard, you want to change the licensing on the standard?
>> If the program does not follow what the stadard says, the program
>> is buggy. The standard is always authoritative (unless some one has
>> monkeyed with the standard, in which case it is no loger a standard).
Raul> This implies that there's only one standard, and that it's
Raul> reasonable to refer a person to that entire standard when
Raul> learning to use the program. This might be true in some cases,
Raul> but it's very far from being accurate for the general case.
File a bug against the program to get docs of its own. This
has nothing to do with whether it implements a standard or not, the
program should ahve documentation, as I said before. OK?
We are talking about a standard, and whether it needs be
mutable. I find this paragraph has little to do with that -- perhaps
I am being dense.
Look, if Fred wants to create a program that implements
standard X, and Fred fails, we do not change the standard; since
Jack, Jill, and Joan are also trying to implement the original
standard, and they should not be penalized for Freds incompetence or
sloth.
Also, Erik maybe writig code that interacts with standard
complaint programs, and Freds buggy implementation should not be used
as an excuse to modify the standard itself.
manoj
--
No man can have a reasonable opinion of women until he has long lost
interest in hair restorers. Austin O'Malley Manoj Srivastava
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key
C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8
6E
