Dear Dave,
Source code is not a spec. Source code is not a “definition” of anything spec-related and it is most certainly not a “rigorous” one. When someone asks for a definition, they are not looking for you to write code for them. They’re looking for a set of very well-defined rules such that they can write their own code, following your rules, with the guarantee that it will be compatible with anyone else’s code, following those same rules, without testing. Code, for a variety of reasons, does not accomplish that task.
Your Buddy,
Eye on Winer
Can “Open Source” come from a closed mind?
SPEC’s are committee work. We’re in that period where Dave is listening before finishing his work and making setting it “free”.
“Free” in Dave’s world means it’s frozen and you a free to admire and copy it. As long as you don’t have to pay for it it meets the definition of free. You are also free to ignore it but many will play with it, freely.
Don Park’s idea of extending it’s namespace with a Wiki is… audacious? Maybe anyone would be able to extend OPML in that way.
No… where did I leave Occam’s razor? Things should be as simple as they can be but no more so.
In fact, using source code to try to determine what is and is not a specification is absolutely the worst way to try and figure out something. You end up with something that is functionally correct in most cases if you are lucky, but will always break when you get feed in input that fall outsides the basics.