RE: [www-qa] Re: Conformance and Implementations

>>I believe it is better to have _one_ authoritative requirement. Since
>>most of us are better at reading human languages rather than RDF or
>>XML, that requirement should be formulated in a human language.


We may be better at reading human language that XML or RDF, but are we 
better at interpreting what was meant by the language?  Standards need to 
be read and interpreted by implementers.  Any language that more precisely 
defines requirements is better than one that doesn't. Also, any language 
that allows implementers to automatically generate test assertions (like 
XML) is a useful specification language.  I've always believed that 
standards are read by implementers and standards committee members, not 
users.  Thus, readability is an issue only as far as it can lead to precise 
and correct implementations.


****************************************************************
Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174
Email: skall@nist.gov
****************************************************************

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 14:45:39 UTC