Marco Cimarosti wrote:
> But, no, this case cannot qualify as a bug because, AFAIK, MS Word et
> al. do not distinguish "italic" from "slanted": the two properties are
> considered one and the same thing, deliberately.
Ah, the old "bug" versus "misfeature" argument. I have fought this
battle many times from the programmer's perspective. There is a
difference, as Marco points out, between a bug (the program does
something unintended and wrong) and a design flaw or "misfeature"
(the program works as designed, but does not meet one or more users'
expectations). There are admittedly times when the line is blurry.
Unfortunately, many non-programmers miss the fine distinction and think
I am merely trying to steer them away from the dreaded "B" word.
I still cringe when I hear the term "millennium bug," because it was
neither: the problem existed not because of the change in millennium
but because of the change in century, or more correctly, the change from
"99" to "00"; and it was a design flaw, not a bug, because such programs
were not specifically designed to work after 1999 (as dumb as that was).
ObUnicode: In a Unicode-enabled application, swapping two glyphs (e.g.
in Latin or Cyrillic) or implementing a "conformant" bidi algorithm
that didn't work right would be a bug. Failing to implement bidi or
Arabic glyph shaping while still providing glyphs for Arabic letters
would not be, although that behavior might not meet user expectations.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:58 EDT