Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:25:01 -0700
> Since my position matches that of the definition quoted by Mike Feldman,
> I have no idea why you think it's not supported. I started off saying
> that a standard can be proprietary (which was my point), and Mike disagreed
> and then agreed, quoting his definition.
> As for your issues, it sounds like you are saying that something cannot
> be a standard if it is not clear and unambiguous. That's not the case
> either ... some standards are ambiguous or unclear, as is the English
Well I would say that something can be unclear and ambigious and still
be a standard ... but it is definitely not a good standard. Nobody
likes to spend their time writing code around bad standards and based
on what I've read in this thread it seems like a lot of people are
saying they have dealt with ambigious/unclear (ie. bad) standards
from Microsoft. (Either that or the "reference implementation"
provided by Microsoft does not match the standard, which is bad too.)
This is a great reason to have standards bodies like ISO, ANSI, etc.
I'm sure Ada95 isn't perfect, but relative to a lot of standards,
that ISO mark tells you that the document has really been worked
over by a lot of reviewiers who were looking for ambiguities and
trying to fix them up.
> Richard Conn, Principal Investigator
> Reuse Tapestry
> Memo to Rick: I've read this whole thread, and I think that most of the
> E-Mail supports Mike Feldman's possible. I don't know what mail you read,
> but you'd have to twist it a lot to support your position. Perhaps Microsoft
> has figured out a way to brainwash attendees to Tech-Ed? :-)