4 ms·
Every backwards compatible spec would have this "problem". Either a new version of a spec says that all existing implementations are out of spec, or it add new
by spankalee 5y ago
Every backwards compatible spec would have this "problem".
Either a new version of a spec says that all existing implementations are out of spec, or it add new optional features and existing implementations are that don't support them are still in spec. There's really no other option.
- Godel_unicode 5y agoThis is not an explanation of why the naming is a disaster. USB 1 devices work on USB 2 devices without there needing to be some insane renaming. Ditto USB 2 devices on USB 3 devices. This naming was an entirely unforced error, and should be called out as such at every opportunity to keep it from happening again. Edit: if you want another example of a spec with good names, checkout WiFi 6. They realized that no normal person could reason about whether 11n or 11ac was better, so they changed the naming scheme to make it obvious what was going on.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> Edit: if you want another example of a spec with good names, checkout WiFi 6. They realized that no normal person could reason about whether 11n or 11ac was better, so they changed the naming scheme to make it obvious what was going on. Moving to WiFi 6 was a great idea! Which they immediately made a mess of. What version of WiFi has 6GHz support? 6e of course. How about uplink MU-MIMO? Oh that's WiFi 6 Wave 2.