Re: [SpecGL] C1: Define your terms, pcpl 1

Le mar 27/07/2004 à 01:15, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit :
> Do we only care about defining the terms in the normative 
> parts?  Hmm.  (thinking out loud with via typing)  I think we want all 
> terms defined, but this is the critical piece.  I think that editors will 
> see this and will end up following this Principle for informative terms as 
> well.  So, in the spirit of keeping things simple and direct, this 
> Principle is fine by me.

That was the approach I chose too; it was also a way to limit the number
of things you need to define - we don't want specifications to become
dictionaries either.

(thanks for the grammatical corrections; a bit more details below)

> >2. review your conformance requirements/test assertions: the most
> >important terms to define in your specification are usually easy to
> >identify when reviewing conformance requirements or test assertions; for
> >instance, the subject of a conformance requirement is supposed to one of
> >the classes of product; the verb, one of the operations this class of
> >product can realize.
> 
> I don't understand the for instance.....

Yeah, re-reading this, the wording is not very clear to say the least :)
I propose we strike it out for now.

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org