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

Re: [SpecGL] Formal vs Prose Good practice wording

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 19:00:13 -0500
Message-Id: <>
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


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
>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

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