[reichstein]

There is every reason for a technical specification to be unambiguous. That's it's one job. Behavior must be clearly within spec or not, otherwise it hurts interoperability.

Implementations should support the entire spec, and not produce something outside of spec, then every implementation can interact with every other implementation.

If the implementers can't agree what's within spec and what's not, it's a bug in the spec.

Law has a similar requirement, only slightly looser because it has a fallback of getting a human judge to decide in case of disagreement. Still, ambiguity in a law is a bug.

In both cases, you do use natural language, which can rely on context, so the real test is, or should be, whether a "reasonable person" would choose a different interpretation, not whether one is technically possible.