[37143] in bugtraq
Re: Update: Web browsers - a mini-farce (MSIE gives in)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Shigorin)
Fri Oct 29 18:35:01 2004
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:59:04 +0300
From: Michael Shigorin <mike@osdn.org.ua>
To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Cc: Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Message-ID: <20041029175904.GK18130@osdn.org.ua>
Mail-Followup-To: bugtraq@securityfocus.com,
Michael Wojcik <Michael.Wojcik@microfocus.com>,
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qcTtWMBd/uZDG7+Y"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <75C025AE395F374B81F6416B1D4BDEFB01C3C341@mtv-corpmail.microfocus.com>
--qcTtWMBd/uZDG7+Y
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:09:22PM -0700, Michael Wojcik wrote:
> It's enough to have a specification
Then you end up shifting the problem to the person to write it.
Writing a spec with *that* detail level is nothing else but
programming in pseudocode.
The net result is that at some level people who do the job loose
control over the situation -- either due to the "plain" problem
being just overly broad, or due to the *neccessary* depth of
non-abstraction (as an effect of code coupling) to overflow
finite-sized human mind. Even though "they should/must".
So you are both right -- maybe it's worth a step off the opposite
corners of the very same soapbox?
Just my UAH.02
--=20
---- WBR, Michael Shigorin <mike@altlinux.ru>
------ Linux.Kiev http://www.linux.kiev.ua/
--qcTtWMBd/uZDG7+Y
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBgoTobsPDprYMm3IRAnXuAKDGb82VLqU6lIdeDa+LjwBVQLvXFgCg01CT
pvSf+yO4LDRXcEiI6Y30iTc=
=3NX7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--qcTtWMBd/uZDG7+Y--
