W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > July 2003

alternatives illustrated [was: Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST]

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2003 08:13:06 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030707081153.0385b170@rockynet.com>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Cc: ij@w3.org, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>


For the LC-67.1 discussion in telecon, I thought it would be useful to see 
concrete representations of the alternatives.  By no means do I think these 
are final or best wording, but hopefully they capture the main ideas.  Once 
we chose an alternative, we can tune the wording and presentation.

For all alternatives, I think we could use the same CP wording (because 
even with Alt.2 and Alt.3, we want to promote the RFC keywords as widely 
applicable and probably the best first choice)"

"CP13.1 Use RFC2119 keywords to identify conformance requirements."

Alt.1:
-----

"Conformance requirements:  any conformance requirement in the 
specification MUST contain RFC2119 keywords, in upper case, to express the 
requirement and indicate whether it is mandatory, recommended, or optional."

The current rationale probably still works okay:  "Rationale.  Using RFC 
keywords helps to identify and easily find the testable statements in a 
specification."  Some "Discussion" might be useful.

(In a sense, this presentation of the CP13.1 ConfReqs makes it a matter of 
definition that the RFC keywords are used in conformance requirements of 
specification -- if the keywords are not there, then it is not a 
conformance requirement.)

Alt.3:
-----

"Conformance requirements:  [ed note... 4 of 'em as I have put it together...]

** the specification MUST define the method(s) by which all of its 
conformance requirements are presented and identified as such.

** The specification MUST use only the method of RFC2119 keywords, unless 
the spec documents that RFC keywords are inapplicable.

** If the spec documents that RFC keywords are either inapplicable or not 
always applicable, then the spec MAY use another method instead of or in 
addition to the RFC keywords.

** If an alternative method is used instead of or in addition to RFC 
keywords, then the specification MUST define the mapping between the 
alternative method and the RFC keywords."

"Rationale.  Using RFC keywords, or some equally clear and unambiguous 
method, helps to identify and easily find the testable statements in a 
specification."

"Discussion.  RFC keywords are considered the best and most widely 
applicable method to clearly identify conformance requirements and describe 
their requirement level (mandatory, recommended, optional).  Nevertheless, 
there may be situations in which the WG considers that RFC keywords won't 
work for a specification, or won't work alone without other methods."

Alt.2
-----
Pretty much like Alt.3, except without the last item (bullet) in the 
ConfReqs section.
### end ###

Regards,
-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 10:12:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:14 GMT