5 ms·

Do you happen to have the exact wording? As far as I can tell these mean the same thing. 1. "You must support URL length up to 100 characters" -> your browser

by tgb 5y ago

Do you happen to have the exact wording? As far as I can tell these mean the same thing. 1. "You must support URL length up to 100 characters" -> your browser must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones) 2. "Your supported URL length must be at least 100 character" -> You must support URLs that are 100 characters or less (and may or may not support longer ones)

bulletsvshumans 5y ago
"At least" means more than or equal to. In other words, the 'least' it can be is 100 characters, with no upper bound.
- tgb 5y ago
  Yes but "you must support up to 100 characters" also has no upper bound - supporting 200 characters also fits that requirement.
  - mypalmike 5y ago
    So if you were a programmer on a project and you were given a spec that says "up to 100", you would just make it unbounded, and for all intents and purposes completely ignore the spec?
    - devmor 5y ago
      "Must" and "Must Not" are keywords in formal spec. If it says "Must support up to 100" and doesn't say "Must Not support over 100" then I would consider the upper limit to be whatever limit is sane for the data type.
      - mypalmike 5y ago
        So you would pick an arbitrary upper limit based on your own notion of what is sane. Picking such a limit, you would still need to write the same error handling code for limits, but it would happen at maybe 200. And the next programmer who inherits your code looks at the spec and your code and has to guess "why 200"? And it becomes lore. Which is specifically worse than writing to the spec.
        devmor 5y ago
        The spec doesn't exist. It's undefined. "Must support up to 100" is not a limit, it's a lower bound.
  - bluefirebrand 5y ago
    I can see where you're coming from, it does read like "MUST support up to 100 characters (and MAY support more of you choose). But honestly I think it's a bad practice to build the "may" part, because it's not explicit. The person who wrote the spec just as easily could have intended it to be "MUST support up to 100 (and may not go over 100)". So by not setting a bound you're gambling with your implementation being rejected, but setting a bound at 100 satisfies both possible "implied clauses" of the requirement and should not be rejected.
- paulddraper 5y ago
  Both sentences require browsers to support 100 characters. Both sentences permit browsers to support 101 characters.
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    Exactly, they're functionally the same.
    - bulletsvshumans 5y ago
      On second pass, you're right. They're the same.
- bigyikes 5y ago
  The supported URL length is at least 100 characters, not the URL length.
lacksconfidence 5y ago
I don't know the exact wording, a gracious reading might be (as directed at people writing html) 1. Never use a URL longer than 100 characters 2. Go ahead and use a URL longer than 100 characters As for the true intent? I've no clue.
lurkerasdfh8 5y ago
You are welcome to try to find it. I just failed :(
tomwojcik 5y ago
Didn't you confuse 'at least' with 'at most'?

by tgb 5y ago

bulletsvshumans 5y ago

"At least" means more than or equal to. In other words, the 'least' it can be is 100 characters, with no upper bound.

tgb 5y ago
Yes but "you must support up to 100 characters" also has no upper bound - supporting 200 characters also fits that requirement.
- mypalmike 5y ago
  So if you were a programmer on a project and you were given a spec that says "up to 100", you would just make it unbounded, and for all intents and purposes completely ignore the spec?
  - devmor 5y ago
    "Must" and "Must Not" are keywords in formal spec. If it says "Must support up to 100" and doesn't say "Must Not support over 100" then I would consider the upper limit to be whatever limit is sane for the data type.
    - mypalmike 5y ago
      So you would pick an arbitrary upper limit based on your own notion of what is sane. Picking such a limit, you would still need to write the same error handling code for limits, but it would happen at maybe 200. And the next programmer who inherits your code looks at the spec and your code and has to guess "why 200"? And it becomes lore. Which is specifically worse than writing to the spec.
      - devmor 5y ago
        The spec doesn't exist. It's undefined. "Must support up to 100" is not a limit, it's a lower bound.
- bluefirebrand 5y ago
  I can see where you're coming from, it does read like "MUST support up to 100 characters (and MAY support more of you choose). But honestly I think it's a bad practice to build the "may" part, because it's not explicit. The person who wrote the spec just as easily could have intended it to be "MUST support up to 100 (and may not go over 100)". So by not setting a bound you're gambling with your implementation being rejected, but setting a bound at 100 satisfies both possible "implied clauses" of the requirement and should not be rejected.
paulddraper 5y ago
Both sentences require browsers to support 100 characters. Both sentences permit browsers to support 101 characters.
- TchoBeer 5y ago
  Exactly, they're functionally the same.
  - bulletsvshumans 5y ago
    On second pass, you're right. They're the same.
bigyikes 5y ago
The supported URL length is at least 100 characters, not the URL length.

lacksconfidence 5y ago

I don't know the exact wording, a gracious reading might be (as directed at people writing html) 1. Never use a URL longer than 100 characters 2. Go ahead and use a URL longer than 100 characters As for the true intent? I've no clue.

lurkerasdfh8 5y ago

You are welcome to try to find it. I just failed :(

tomwojcik 5y ago

Didn't you confuse 'at least' with 'at most'?