Re: [office] Using pictures and examples in the spec

[André Rebentisch <andre.rebentisch@arsaperta.com>]

Am 02.04.2013 01:55, schrieb robert_weir@us.ibm.com:
> Generally there is a preference for defining clearly things rather than
> giving examples, where at all possible.  Specifying something and then
> giving examples is a practice that has the potential for introducing
> additional ambiguities.  You can also run into situations where the
> examples and the specification contradict each other.  

Appeared to me that the removal of the examples in draft stage caused
semantic loss because a natural language lacks precision. Adding
precision to language adds new ambiguities while a single example could
illustrate expected interpretation. No need to be as more precise as
long as the examples were there.

Leaves the task to verify carefully a semantic loss in the spec, case of
the sort, for instance an example with a negative value demonstrates
that a negative value is permitted, but you don't always find that
specified.

--- A