Talk:reference implementation

reference implementation
implementation of reference. -- Prince Kassad 10:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No idea, I haven't a clue what it means. I've now read the Wikipedia article and I still don't know. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep; implementation of reference means nothing to me; if you used that phrase I would have no idea what you meant. Even in this context, it took me a while to understand that you meant it to mean the same thing as what I understand to reference implementation mean. If you said "the implementation that is to be referred to while implementing of the standard", then you would clearly referring to the reference implementation.--Prosfilaes 19:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It means nothing to me, and upon reading the entry, it means the same. Is it too much to ask to have entries written in a style that educated native English speakers can understand them? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So fix it. I can't fix it, because I have no clue what your problem is. I gave an alternate definition in my post; what don't you understand about it?--Prosfilaes 23:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The def requested for deletion: "A software example of a specification, intended to help others implement their own version of the specification or find problems during the creation of a specification." I find the def lacking a bit. I would propose this def: "A piece of software that implements a specification of requirements and whose main purpose is to help in creation of other software implementations of the specification by serving as a point of reference rather than being put to productive use." If I am not the only one who likes my def, feel free to place it to the entry. --Dan Polansky 15:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Kept; not emended. Please continue to discuss its emendation. I'm not striking this section, but am detagging the entry. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stricken. Equinox ◑ 22:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)