I like that it promotes the continued development of the technology the specification is meant for, but I can't help thinking it makes implementing a lot harder if they can't discretely track changes and verify to a specific version.
Many open Web standards managed by some W3C working groups have shifted to the Living Standard model, see WHAT WG compared to a more easily trackable yearly release like the TC39 from ECMA.
Interesting. I think you have a different kind of "living documentation" in mind that I have.
I thought about it in terms of documentation generated from software code. I should have defined that.
Anyway: I will have a look at the links. I am working for a standards body as well (the OMG), and I was not aware of the "Living Standard" model. Thank you for providing the links.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I like that it promotes the continued development of the technology the specification is meant for, but I can't help thinking it makes implementing a lot harder if they can't discretely track changes and verify to a specific version.
Can you elaborate a bit or give an example what kind of executable specifications you are referring to?
Many open Web standards managed by some W3C working groups have shifted to the Living Standard model, see WHAT WG compared to a more easily trackable yearly release like the TC39 from ECMA.
[1] spec.whatwg.org/
[2] tc39.github.io/ecma262/
[3] ecma-international.org/publication...
Interesting. I think you have a different kind of "living documentation" in mind that I have.
I thought about it in terms of documentation generated from software code. I should have defined that.
Anyway: I will have a look at the links. I am working for a standards body as well (the OMG), and I was not aware of the "Living Standard" model. Thank you for providing the links.