[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [office] Using pictures and examples in the spec
Am 02.04.2013 01:55, schrieb robert_weir@us.ibm.com: > Generally there is a preference for defining clearly things rather than > giving examples, where at all possible. Specifying something and then > giving examples is a practice that has the potential for introducing > additional ambiguities. You can also run into situations where the > examples and the specification contradict each other. Appeared to me that the removal of the examples in draft stage caused semantic loss because a natural language lacks precision. Adding precision to language adds new ambiguities while a single example could illustrate expected interpretation. No need to be as more precise as long as the examples were there. Leaves the task to verify carefully a semantic loss in the spec, case of the sort, for instance an example with a negative value demonstrates that a negative value is permitted, but you don't always find that specified. --- A
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]