W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > June 2003

Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST?

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:27:54 -0400
Message-Id: <a06001807bb1f7d0d72d2@[]>
To: www-qa@w3.org

At 9:54 -0600 2003-06-25, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>Alt.2:  no, the RFC2119 keywords are the recommended and preferred 
>way, but other language is permitted (e.g., marked-up imperative 
>voice statements), as long as the spec unambiguously defines what 
>are its conformance requirements and how are they identified in the 

I choose Alt 2. Because I think it imposes a quality requirements 
(abstract) but not the vocabulary to make it. It's in a sense what 
Tantek was asking about test suite "do not impose a tool, but 
requirements on test".

RFC 2119 is a tool, but not the only one available. And some may fit 
in a better way. We just have to be very careful and see if the 
abstract model for conformance can be defined without ambiguity.

Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:32 UTC