Lists Home |
Date Index |
Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> At 10:14 AM -0400 10/25/02, John Cowan wrote:
>> Read the errata page.
> Oh joy. Another erratum that rewrites history because the working group
> changed its mind. Sorry. I don't accept such errata as normative. The
> spec is clear an unambiguous.
Not so unambiguous that parsers agreed on what version could contain.
That's a problem that I raised a while ago (perhaps over a year, I can't
find it in the archives). Some parsers accepted any string. Others
accepted only 1.0. Others still accepted any number representation equal
to 1 (1, 01, 1.00...).
Given that everyone used the string "1.0" it never became much of a
problem. Well, almost everyone: I became aware of the problem because
one user had just "1" and was bumping into inconsistent behaviour
Imho before that erratum that part of the spec was underspecified, and
the erratum was a good thing.
John: is a 1.0e3 planned for to incorporate errata?
Robin Berjon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Research Engineer, Expway
7FC0 6F5F D864 EFB8 08CE 8E74 58E6 D5DB 4889 2488