Unified: More than a specification, Nimble is a product. We strongly discourage developers to (re-)implement Nimble’s spec to prevent environmental fragmentation issues observed with similar projects in the past. We encourage developers to leverage the single unified Nimble library, and create high-quality bindings to other languages as needed.
Call me a greybeard; I want multiple implementations and a spec.
On the other hand - it's an open source project, I hope someone can contribute to it and create a PR with the spec.
There are some unfortunately popular projects like Puppet over the past 20 years who tried to sell the lack of documentation as a positive, or just had incomplete and outdated documentation like Chef. ;] On the flip side, IETF RFCs, Python PEPs, and Rust RFCs are examples where specifications made things clearer and open to everyone. It's not enough to open source a thing without context or comments, the learning curve must be accounted for to make it as self-service and understandable as possible to people who have domain knowledge but have never used this particular thing before. OOTBE UX. Code maybe a communication of intended system behavior, but it is often too low-level and spread around to be relied upon as a singular, compact reference.
It's not more than a specification if a single implementation is to be used--then it's a 'spec' defined by the implementation because any idiosyncrasies of that implementation become defacto specification.
I would prefer to write a parser with zero dependencies.