- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:34:01 +0100
- To: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
* Dominique Hazael-Massieux wrote: >Is there a logical contradiction behind the idea of a normative >requirement that would not be testable? I don't think there is, but >would be interested to hear what others think about it. The less black box testing effort is required in order to verify whether a specific requirement has been met the better. If you cannot tell the difference between compliant and non-compliant through black box testing or if it requires significant effort to do so, such a requirement is likely out of scope of most W3C Technical Reports (as it isn't useful, if nothing else). If you restrict yourself to things that are actually required for interoperability as required in RFC 2119 you are not likely to run into this problem either. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2005 01:33:46 UTC