Re: Using more robust failures to support existing SCs

Failures are great — but they are VERY hard to do.

They never broaden an SC — and they can only be created if there is no way to pass under any circumstances for any content for any technology if you do this. 

We (the working group) has had to remove a number that we created due to this.  


1) the  SC has to absolutely require it
2) it has to be impossible to pass the SC for all case if the failure is true. 

They are very helpful to evaluators when they can be created.

Gregg


> On Oct 29, 2015, at 11:12 AM, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> In the last thread - some interesting comments from Detlev and Jon A, got me thinking and I want to give a +1. I agree with Detlev and Jon and think this is a clever approach to providing better support for existing SCs, by having more and varied failures.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Josh
>

Received on Thursday, 29 October 2015 21:43:59 UTC