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

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

From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 22:32:36 -0600 (MDT)
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
cc: www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0306252215470.26762@measurement-factory.com>

On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Lofton Henderson wrote:

> 3.) We have not yet explained in CP13.1 (but must do so) how its
> simply-stated requirements apply to:

> 3a.) Specs with bulk of specific requirements in formal language
> (like DOM's IDL)

When I use a BNF or a similar formal language in a spec, I say
something like

	"The BNF above defines syntactically valid messages.
	An implementation MUST forward any syntactically
	valid message."

This way, it is always possible to tie/merge a MUST with formal
language rules (BNF). Is that something you are after in 3a?

> 3b.) Specs written with embedded Test Assertions.  (Remember when SpecGL
> actually suggested or required that TAs be embedded?  Have we now come full
> circle to say that embedded-TAs are prohibited as a form of expression of
> requirements?)

The Glossary definition of TA is "A set of premises that are known to
be true by definition in the spec". In my interpretation it simply
means "a definition" (if somebody could point out the difference,
please do).  Definitions are not requirements, but virtually all
requirements use them. The BNF example above illustrates how a MUST
requirement uses a definition of a valid message. Did I misunderstand
the problem of 3b?


                            | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
                            | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 00:32:41 UTC

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