On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Boris Zbarsky <bzbar...@mit.edu> wrote: > On 10/6/11 12:11 PM, Adam Barth wrote: >> >> It sounds like you're arguing that it's better for developers if we >> fail fast and hard > > In some cases, yes. It's a tradeoff in every case, obviously. > > A meta-issue: if you disagree with the spec text when implementing > something, silently implementing something else seems strictly worse than > raising a spec issue (and still implementing something else if desired).
I didn't knowingly diverge from the spec. I didn't notice the strict error checking when writing the patch. > Especially for things that you're planning to implement unprefixed. We implemented this feature without a prefix at Ian's specific request. > Likewise for cases when the spec is unclear, etc. What's the point of > having implementations early in the specification process if they don't > actually provide feedback and instead only serve to lock in behaviors? I think you're being a big aggressive. In any case, I didn't have any ill intent. I just misunderstood because it never occurred to me that we'd want to fail hard on this sort of error. Adam