5 ms·

Specs designed by committee usually fail when they produce just the "paper" and no reference implementation. Look at W3C, which consistently failed to develop t

Specs designed by committee usually fail when they produce just the "paper" and no reference implementation. Look at W3C, which consistently failed to develop their own reference browser. The same seems true for TLS, actual implementations are too complicated because the committee paid no attention to this. A positive example is MP3, where everyone just copied the reference codec in the beginning.

octo_t 13y ago
A good example here would be C++. Look at how long it took for C++11 to be implemented, but now at least two compilers are feature complete (gcc + clang) and now they're on schedule to be feature complete for C++1y[1], with implementation + specification in sync. [1] http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx14 http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx14
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  It also helps that C++ doesn't have nearly the number of implementers in position to screw stuff up. Unlike any number of webservers, SSL libraries, load-balancers, firewalls, proxies, etc. How many C++11 compilers are there? This support matrix[1] seems to indicate there are 2 compilers in the lead, with 5 providing fairly decent coverage. How popular is XLC++? And anyways, adding another compiler is something you choose to do, and usually run a bit of tests for, right? Unlike networking protocols where it's invisible to you that someone has some idiotic inspection hardware that segfaults on certain packets and drops your connection. Edit: Also, even if two compilers are feature complete, it doesn't mean they implement the features in perfectly compatible ways, right? 1: https://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport https://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport
- Sharlin 13y ago
  And C++11 itself was implemented awfully quickly compared to C++03, exactly because this time around the Committee was much stricter about having reference (or at the very least prototype) implementations available before accepting anything into the Standard. As you mentioned, C++14 actually seems to be proceeding like it optimally should, so the Committee has certainly learned its lessons regarding this.
colanderman 13y ago
Look at W3C, which consistently failed to develop their own reference browser. Does http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ not count?
- robin_reala 13y ago
  It exists, but it’s hardly a reference for the current state of the specifications.
rjzzleep 13y ago
websockets at the very least had a reference implementation. but it was more along the lines of "it works for me, i tested it on my local machine" it took ages long discussions to get the point across. "yes, but on your local machine you don't have a reverse proxy like every other normal web application stack". it's going to break if we do it this way and they just kept responding. "but it works here" what about the oauth2 spectactle? http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/ http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell...
gsnedders 13y ago
At the W3C, no spec can reach REC without having two interoperable implementations. Also note everyone copying the reference implementation isn't good either — there's no guarantee the spec actually defines enough to recreate the reference implementation then!
- lazyjones 13y ago
  > At the W3C, no spec can reach REC without having two interoperable implementations. Wishful thinking? Where are these reference implementations documented for HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.01? > Also note everyone copying the reference implementation isn't good either — there's no guarantee the spec actually defines enough to recreate the reference implementation then! If the spec is lacking, whatever the reference implementation does completes the spec. There is no value in having a pure paper spec that someone may be able to implement a correct piece of software with over having a correct reference implementation with full source code.
  - gsnedders 13y ago
    > Wishful thinking? Where are these reference implementations documented for HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.01? There is no requirement for them to be "reference implementations". CSS 2.1, for example, used various web browsers as proof of interoperability (where every test in the test suite was shown to have at least two passing implementations). The "interoperable implementations" clause was introduced as a recommendation in 1999, 2001 saw it required every feature in the spec must have been implemented, preferably with two interoperable implementations, and clarified as RFC2119 "should" in 2003 — HTML 4 was published in 1998, prior the W3C having a formal process document, and HTML 4.01 was likely exempted as a minor revision in 1999. > If the spec is lacking, whatever the reference implementation does completes the spec. There is no value in having a pure paper spec that someone may be able to implement a correct piece of software with over having a correct reference implementation with full source code. Ideally the spec shouldn't be lacking. If one needs a reference implementation, the spec has failed to be a complete definition, and if the spec is not a complete definition, what is the point of it? You may as well just have a high-level overview in the documentation of the reference implementation!

octo_t 13y ago

A good example here would be C++. Look at how long it took for C++11 to be implemented, but now at least two compilers are feature complete (gcc + clang) and now they're on schedule to be feature complete for C++1y[1], with implementation + specification in sync. [1] http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx14 http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html#cxx14

MichaelGG 13y ago
It also helps that C++ doesn't have nearly the number of implementers in position to screw stuff up. Unlike any number of webservers, SSL libraries, load-balancers, firewalls, proxies, etc. How many C++11 compilers are there? This support matrix[1] seems to indicate there are 2 compilers in the lead, with 5 providing fairly decent coverage. How popular is XLC++? And anyways, adding another compiler is something you choose to do, and usually run a bit of tests for, right? Unlike networking protocols where it's invisible to you that someone has some idiotic inspection hardware that segfaults on certain packets and drops your connection. Edit: Also, even if two compilers are feature complete, it doesn't mean they implement the features in perfectly compatible ways, right? 1: https://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport https://wiki.apache.org/stdcxx/C%2B%2B0xCompilerSupport
Sharlin 13y ago
And C++11 itself was implemented awfully quickly compared to C++03, exactly because this time around the Committee was much stricter about having reference (or at the very least prototype) implementations available before accepting anything into the Standard. As you mentioned, C++14 actually seems to be proceeding like it optimally should, so the Committee has certainly learned its lessons regarding this.

colanderman 13y ago

Look at W3C, which consistently failed to develop their own reference browser. Does http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ http://www.w3.org/Amaya/ not count?

robin_reala 13y ago
It exists, but it’s hardly a reference for the current state of the specifications.

rjzzleep 13y ago

websockets at the very least had a reference implementation. but it was more along the lines of "it works for me, i tested it on my local machine" it took ages long discussions to get the point across. "yes, but on your local machine you don't have a reverse proxy like every other normal web application stack". it's going to break if we do it this way and they just kept responding. "but it works here" what about the oauth2 spectactle? http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell/ http://hueniverse.com/2012/07/oauth-2-0-and-the-road-to-hell...

gsnedders 13y ago

At the W3C, no spec can reach REC without having two interoperable implementations. Also note everyone copying the reference implementation isn't good either — there's no guarantee the spec actually defines enough to recreate the reference implementation then!

lazyjones 13y ago
> At the W3C, no spec can reach REC without having two interoperable implementations. Wishful thinking? Where are these reference implementations documented for HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.01? > Also note everyone copying the reference implementation isn't good either — there's no guarantee the spec actually defines enough to recreate the reference implementation then! If the spec is lacking, whatever the reference implementation does completes the spec. There is no value in having a pure paper spec that someone may be able to implement a correct piece of software with over having a correct reference implementation with full source code.
- gsnedders 13y ago
  > Wishful thinking? Where are these reference implementations documented for HTML 2.0, 3.2, 4.01? There is no requirement for them to be "reference implementations". CSS 2.1, for example, used various web browsers as proof of interoperability (where every test in the test suite was shown to have at least two passing implementations). The "interoperable implementations" clause was introduced as a recommendation in 1999, 2001 saw it required every feature in the spec must have been implemented, preferably with two interoperable implementations, and clarified as RFC2119 "should" in 2003 — HTML 4 was published in 1998, prior the W3C having a formal process document, and HTML 4.01 was likely exempted as a minor revision in 1999. > If the spec is lacking, whatever the reference implementation does completes the spec. There is no value in having a pure paper spec that someone may be able to implement a correct piece of software with over having a correct reference implementation with full source code. Ideally the spec shouldn't be lacking. If one needs a reference implementation, the spec has failed to be a complete definition, and if the spec is not a complete definition, what is the point of it? You may as well just have a high-level overview in the documentation of the reference implementation!