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

Re: [SpecGL] Formal vs Prose Good practice wording

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2005 08:56:10 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20050207084801.00a83f88@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

I think that it may not be appropriate for every technology or 
specification to express requirements using a formal
language.  For example, requirements for authoring tools are currently 
expressed in terms of necessary behaviors/actions
  and capabilities of said tools, which may not lend themselves to 
description using a formal language.
Furthermore, there is a large variety of authoring tools, and assessment of 
some requirements may involve
humans (which may preclude use of a formal language?).

Thus, are any techniques needed under "5. Good Practice E:" to cover 
situations such as previously mentioned,
for which there is no appropriate formal language that can be used for 
specification requirements?

Just a thought..

Thanks and best wishes..

Tim Boland NIST   
Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 13:56:17 GMT

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