Re: Results for Debian's Position on the GFDL
Ken Arromdee <arromdee@rahul.net> writes:
> On Tue, 28 Mar 2006, Walter Landry wrote:
>> These examples give partial specifications, not full specifications.
>> I see no reason to read the GFDL as requiring only partial
>> specifications.
>
> What's the difference between "full specification for A, which is a subset
> of B" and "partial specification of B", other than semantics?
The big difference is lack of clarity. We know what B is (word
documents, say), but if what A is is unclear (a word document using some
subset of possible (combinations of) formatting commands?), we're in a
lot worse situation because we can't necessarily straightforwardly say
for a given document whether or not it's in A. Ultimately, answering
this question in a given case is likely to require comparing the output
of the full specification (B) with the partial (A).
Which means that you're likely to need the full specification (B) for QA
purposes even if, technically, the document in question only uses A.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: