Clarify role of the FAQ #57
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Motivation
The FAQ has been frequently brought up in arguments about PVP compliance as an authoritative source on how to interpret the main specification text, even if the main text does not allow the same conclusions.
E.g.: haskell-infra/hackage-trustees#375 (comment)
Reasoning
A specification stands on its own and must be interpreted only through the specification text. Ambiguities and imprecisions in specs are rarely an oversight, but intended, in order to allow different implementations/approaches.
An FAQ serves to give more insights into a specification and is not there to fix insufficiently worded sections, nor to be an authoritative source of interpretation. Such sections need to be fixed in the spec text, not be amended by an FAQ.
Additionally, the FAQ is not even versioned, making it even more questionable to use as an authoritative source for interpretation.