[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility |
Date: |
Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:33:17 +0100 |
ari <address@hidden> wrote:
> My argument relates to IEEE Std 1003.1-2003.
Yes, I too am referring to that standard.
In http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/head.html
you noted the `should' in the `APPLICATION USAGE' section:
The obsolescent - number form is withdrawn in this version.
Applications should use the -n number option.
Perhaps you didn't see the preceding line:
The following sections are informative.
in which `informative' is in contrast with `normative'.
I'm not a standards lawyer, but I have the impression that
when interpreting the standard, one must pay close attention
to the wording in the normative (prescriptive) parts.
The wording in non-normative (descriptive) sections doesn't
define the standard.
After 10 years of being merely `obsolescent', head -N has finally
been officially declared to be `obsolete'.
- "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Bob Proulx, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/02
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Jarc, 2003/11/03
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, ari, 2003/11/04
- Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/04
Re: "conformance" vs. compatibility, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/03