W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2005

RE: SpecGL ICS for SpecGL

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:07:52 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: "Lynne S. Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

At 07:38 AM 4/25/2005 -0400, Lynne S. Rosenthal wrote:

>[...]the way we wrote the requirements, they are in the form of test

I don't think I agree.  They are close, and a simple transformation of the 
wording would make them test assertions, but they are not test assertions 
as they stand.  Example:

Reqt 01:  "Include a conformance clause."

TA for Reqt 01:  "The specification includes a conformance clause."

This was discussed ad nauseum in the old times, and I think we reached a 
conclusion similar to the above (altho' it's only documented in the 
historical archives now).  I would not expect TAs to be written in 
imperative voice, or using RFC2119 jargon.

Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 14:08:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:34 UTC