- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 00:17:00 +0200
- To: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+w3c@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
* Aryeh Gregor wrote: >The difference is that if you have "must" requirements that are >specific to a single conformance class, you can write a test suite and >expect every implementation in that class to pass it. For "should" >requirements, you're saying it's okay to violate it, so test suites >don't make a lot of sense. And if I make an implementation that does not fit in any of the classes I can just argue that the specification did not anticipate the class my implementation falls in. You would have to explain how arguing about a missing conformance class is better than arguing about whether "should" level requirements have been met. With your model you would have more "clarity", but you would also be more wrong, and require more effort to make things right, in addition to inhibiting innovation. I think that's a very difficult argument to make and we have "should" because of that. -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 10 July 2011 22:17:14 UTC