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: <5.1.0.14.2.20030626160310.0367ad38@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org

Alex,

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 . . .

Mark


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
>RFC.
>
> > 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
>explain.
>
>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.
>
>Alex.

****************************************************************
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:14:00 GMT