- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 11:48:18 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
- Cc: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Dear Ian, Thanks for your comments on the Last Call version of the QA Framework: Specification Guidelines[0] - 22 November 2004 After two weeks from now (on May 18, 2005), the lack of answer will be considered as if you had accepted the comment. Original comment (issue 1049 [1]) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2005Jan/0014.html Thank you for your comment, which the QA Working Group has accepted. We have reworded the affected section as you recommended and it now reads [2] “What does it mean? If an existing formal language (e.g. DTD, Schemas, ...) is expressive enough to describe the technical requirements of the specification, use it and when the English prose and the formal language overlap, make it clear which one takes precedence in case of discrepancy. Why care?When possible, there is an immediate benefit of using a formal language to describe conformance requirements. It minimizes ambiguities introduced by the interpretation of the prose. There is also the possibility of using existing tools for the given language to facilitate testing and validation. However, prose remains necessary to allow implementers to understand the specification, as well as to express additional requirements the formal language cannot express; this means that there are possible overlaps between the prose and the formal language, in which case, it is important to define which one is the main point of reference in case of disjunction.” [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ [1] http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1049 [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-qaframe-spec-20050428/#formal- language-gp -- Karl Dubost QA Working Group Chair http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/
Received on Tuesday, 3 May 2005 15:48:32 UTC