- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 13:47:26 -0600
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 01:46 PM 4/19/03 -0400, you wrote: >I agree, that we shouldn't legislate how to properly use the 2119 keywords >- I think that Susan L. may already be doing that, with her >comment. However, I think we must be able to explain why we believe that >we are using these keywords appropriately. I don't agree that SpecGL should defend its use of the RFC2119 keywords. If anyone wants to raise an issue that we are NOT using them correctly, with specifics, then we can defend our usage. Btw ... in #67 is she talking about: 1.) SpecGL's own usage of the keywords? 2.) or, SpecGL legislating keyword usage for others? I have been reading it as #2. >For SpecGL and TestGL, the rationale may be easier than for OpsGL. The >rationale being, satisfying these checkpoints ensure that developers of >Specifications will write the specification in a manner that will enable >and enhance interoperability. I don't think OpsGL or TestGL should pro-actively defend their RFC2119 usage either. Let someone make a documented assertion that we are not doing it correctly, and we will deal with it as an issue. (Who knows, we might end up agreeing and changing the GL docs ... but I doubt it.) -Lofton. >happy Easter >lynne > > >At 10:10 AM 4/19/2003 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >>Upon thinking about this a little more: >> >>** I'm convinced that we should NOT, in SpecGL, try to legislate how to >>properly use the 2119 keywords; >> >>** "how to use 'em" -- it sounds like a Technique, no? >> >>So, a constructive proposal... >> >>I think it would be interesting for someone to develop a Note about this >>-- application and appropriate use of RFC2119 keywords across the diverse >>spectrum of W3C standards. As I said (below), I think RFC2119 is written >>with a particular mind set about the scope of things to which it would be >>applied. At the fringes or outside of that implicit scope, some creative >>interpretation is required. >> >>Such a Note could be linked from ExTech. >> >>Who is the "someone" to write it? A collaboration between us (QAWG) and >>Comm comes to mind. >> >>Proposed resolution of #67: >> >>1.) SpecGL should not try to legislate how to properly use the 2119 keywords; >>2.) "how to use" would fall in the domain of SpecET, and should be >>implemented by developing a W3C Note about it (perhaps as QAWG/Comm >>collaboration). >> >>-Lofton. > >
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2003 15:45:32 UTC