RE: SpecGL ICS for SpecGL

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
>assertions.

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.

-Lofton.