Date: Mon, 03.12.12 20:04
SD> At your opinion, FTSC should document and standartize ALL "current
SD> practise", even practize by the few? Even the erroneous? Even the
Document, yes. Standardise, no. Acknowledging the existence of a practise
does not imply permission.
Ideally, a properly written specification and properly written software would
leave little room for surprises. Fringe practises would either come within
allowable tolerances, or induce an error in existing implementations and be
stopped before it spreads.
Where this isn't possible, acknowledging the practise in the specification
without making it part of the prescribed (permitted/required) practise is
Fringe practises that don't fall within the scope of existing specifications
belong as proposals in the FRL.
SD> IMHO FTSC should specify erroneous in "current practice". And my
SD> changes in the FTS-5000 are directed for this.
Be careful not to exceed the FTSC's authority (ie. none). Authors of
protocols, etc. can be liberal with "MUST" and "MUST NOT" type language, but
the FTSC is more often revising existing specifications than creating new ones,
thus it is more likely to step on someone's toes. Where possible the FTSC
should simply note the issues and consequences without getting unnecessarily
* Origin: email@example.com (3:712/848)