- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:00:13 -0500
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
Agree - it really is a technique and your proposed technique looks good. Can we change the title of this GP? It doesn't really make sense. Isn't the focus on using a formal language, rather than which takes precedence? Since, you don't have to worry about the latter if you don't have the former. Suggest: a) Use a formal language b) Specify requirements with a formal language The 'What Does this Mean' already talks about what to do if there is conflict between the English and formal language - which takes precedence --lynne At 03:32 PM 2/3/2005 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote: >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 Friday, 4 February 2005 01:17:47 UTC