Re: [Fwd: EARL requirements 1st WD]

Proposed responses inline...

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [Moderator Action] EARL requirements 1st WD
> Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:28:44 +0000
> From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

> Substantively:
>
> [[
> F02
>     EARL 1.0 will provide mechanisms to relate test results with the
> specific location within the subject that triggered the result where
> applicable.
> ]]
>   I suggest that requirement F02 should be demoted from "will" to
> "should". This is a complex requirement that would be good to meet,
> however I do not believe that EARL would have failed if this requirement
> cannot be met, so the lower status of "should" is appropriate.

I suggest that we maintain the must, because this is important to our use  
cases, but note that these may not be reliable or even applicable in all  
circumstances

> Editorially:
>   I suggest that
> [[
> F05
>     EARL 1.0 may support backward compatibility of the language with
> previous versions published in earlier Working Drafts.
> ]]
>   be listed as a non-requirement, or not listed at all, since the
> rather particularly definition of may, seems to mean non-requirement.

I suggest that we keep this in the document - it is something to aspire  
to, but not necessary to explain if we do not meet it. Knowing a little  
more of what we would like is, IMHO valuable. for measuring whether we  
succeeded, and may assis t someone reviewing our work who can tell us a  
relatively easy way to achieve what we would like but didn't work out  
ourselves to realise that such comments are indeed welcome.

> [I assume further prettification comments are not interesting for this
> document]

I agree

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      chaals@opera.com
          hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
         Web dreams are free:   http://www.opera.com/download

Received on Friday, 7 October 2005 00:03:05 UTC