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

[SpecGL] Formal vs Prose Good practice wording

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 15:32:26 -0500
Message-Id: <8478b100ecb17b21b1ec4df5f6f7daeb@w3.org>
To: 'www-qa-wg@w3.org' <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
AI-20050131-7 (KD) to propose a "good practice" on the issue of 
formal/prose language normativity, 2005-02-07

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/#formal-language

Do we really need a new "good practice"? I thought it was more a 
technique. There's a technique which already answer that.

[[[	
	To avoid discrepancies between the English prose and the formal 
language, set up a process so that a given section is bound to a given 
part of the formal language, and one can't modified without the other.
]]]

We can add

	Be sure that both prose and formal languages are synchronized. You 
might try to implement the feature by following only the formal 
language, then try to implement a second time by following only the 
prose, and finally make a consistency checking.

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Thursday, 3 February 2005 22:53:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:19 GMT