Re: changes and standards documents

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>]

Hi,
>>"Raul" == Raul Miller <rdm@test.legislate.com> writes:

 Raul> Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com> 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
 <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/> Key
 C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8
 6E