- From: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 09:43:42 +0200
- To: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <1090914222.29618.1273.camel@stratustier>
Le mar 27/07/2004 à 01:15, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit : > Do we only care about defining the terms in the normative > parts? Hmm. (thinking out loud with via typing) I think we want all > terms defined, but this is the critical piece. I think that editors will > see this and will end up following this Principle for informative terms as > well. So, in the spirit of keeping things simple and direct, this > Principle is fine by me. That was the approach I chose too; it was also a way to limit the number of things you need to define - we don't want specifications to become dictionaries either. (thanks for the grammatical corrections; a bit more details below) > >2. review your conformance requirements/test assertions: the most > >important terms to define in your specification are usually easy to > >identify when reviewing conformance requirements or test assertions; for > >instance, the subject of a conformance requirement is supposed to one of > >the classes of product; the verb, one of the operations this class of > >product can realize. > > I don't understand the for instance..... Yeah, re-reading this, the wording is not very clear to say the least :) I propose we strike it out for now. Dom -- Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/ W3C/ERCIM mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 27 July 2004 03:44:02 UTC