Ian's perspective [was: Re: LC-67 leftover -- MUST use MUST?] from Lofton Henderson on 2003-06-26 (www-qa-wg@w3.org from June 2003)

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:43:16 -0600
To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030626104019.01efac50@rockynet.com>

[...note QAWG list for this procedural suggestion...]

At 10:06 AM 6/26/03 -0400, Mark Skall wrote:
[...]
>>1.) We lack a convincing demonstration that all conformance contexts can 
>>be handled with simple application of the RFC keywords alone.  UAWG 
>>asserts this about UAAG10, for example.  (I am reporting this, without 
>>taking a position on their correctness -- I haven't decided about that yet.)
>
>I'm not sure that is what Ian was saying.  I think he was saying it was 
>better or more convenient (his subjective opinion) to use other ways to 
>enumerate requirements - not that it using the RFC keywords was insufficient.

We could invite him to join us in teleconference, instead of trying to 
divine his reasons and judge his seriousness.

What do you think (all)?

-Lofton.

Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 12:43:16 UTC