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

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

From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:10:25 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org


Though you have certainly not convinced me, you have, yet again, outlasted me.

I need to get back to more pressing matters.

Till next time . . .


At 01:20 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Mark Skall wrote:
> >>> You cannot programmatically verify that you are getting people's
> >>> attention.  (Some of us have a very short attention span).  The
> >>> whole purpose of using tried and true keywords is that we know it
> >>> will get people's attention because we've used them time and
> >>> again.
> >> You cannot programmatically verify that are getting people's
> >> attention.
> > You're missing the point.  We don't need to verify this.
>Great! I have to verify my statements, but you do not need to verify
>yours. How convenient.
> > It's called empirical evidence.  We've already seen it with our own
> > eyes.
>I have seen many developers missing MUSTs.
> > Again, we have years of experience with the RFC.
>And that experience shows that RFC 2119 is not always perfect. See
>UAAG example. BTW, we have even more years of experience without the
> > What you and Lofton are suggesting is a hypothetical premise that
> > one can produce clear requirements.
>Not really. I am suggesting that it may be possible and needed to use
>something other that RFC 2119 keywords, in some cases.
> > I think the logic you're referring to is Alex-logic.  I like to use
> > real logic.
>Whatever logic you use, please apply it to your own statements first.
>It help to see that other people may have a point.
>Experience (or your consider empirical evidence), BTW, has nothing to
>do with logic! Nobody experienced two parallel lines intersecting;
>yet, space navigation is based on logic derived from that axiom. And,
>vice versa, some people experience things that logic cannot yet
>Empirical evidence can often be interpreted and used in many ways.
> >> Other requirements [should] talk about good spec qualities. This
> >> requirement talks about a tool to achieve good spec qualities.
> >> There is a big difference (as big as the difference between MUST
> >> and SHOULD).
> >
> > What we're actually doing is invoking syntax along with semantics.
> > Standards can actually do that . . .
>I did not say you cannot. I said you SHOULD NOT, not in this
>particular case.
>Would you also say that all specs MUST be written in English?
>Logically, you should since language is also a part of the syntax.

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 Thursday, 26 June 2003 16:10:48 UTC

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