Bugs and standard conformance, when it comes from MS

My recent secondary concern is about the lack of legal mind and English-only nationalism in American House of Representatives on "Ianfu" issue, as well as the concern on Nanking massacre denialists's attack on the film 'Nanking'. But both are political topics that I usually don't dig in depth...

My recent primary concern is about the essential private rights in Japanese private law system, which seems correctly imported from German pandecten and incorrectly adopted to Japanese law. My recent reading Japanese book "the distance between freedom and privilege", which is based on Carl Schmidt and talks about the nature of limitation on (property) rights, was also nice. I'm hoping that those arguments would decrease some basic misunderstandings on the scope of copyrights in principle.

Anyways.

As some of mono community dudes know, I always fight against those who only consider .NET compatibility than conformance to standards. They end up to try to justify date function to be incorrect even in the proposal draft of standards just because of a bug in MS Excel (as well as Lotus), which doesn't really make sense.

Anyways what I remembered on seeing Miguel's doubt on MS compiler (csc.exe) behavior was my own feedback to MS that csc has ECMA 334 violation on comparison between System.IntPtr and null (I believe System.IntPtr.Zero is introduced exactly for this issue). I reported it about one year ago when I was trying to build YaneSDK.NET (an OpenGL-based game SDK) on mono.

This bug had left until Jan 31, and then it was closed without any comments. I quickly reopened it and thus it is still active. Of course I totally don't mind that .NET has bugs (having live / long-standing issues is very usual) including ECMA violations.

Since I have reported couple of .NET bugs, sometimes I saw "interesting" reactions. In this case, MS says that this is "a bug in ECMA spec" so that "they will come up with a new spec". They think they "own" the control of the specification (I'm not talking about the ownership of the copyrights on the specification).

After all, it seems that I'm always concerned about rules and justifications.

|