- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 08:07:52 -0600
- To: "Lynne S. Rosenthal" <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: "'www-qa-wg@w3.org'" <www-qa-wg@w3.org>
At 07:38 AM 4/25/2005 -0400, Lynne S. Rosenthal wrote: >[...]the way we wrote the requirements, they are in the form of test >assertions. I don't think I agree. They are close, and a simple transformation of the wording would make them test assertions, but they are not test assertions as they stand. Example: Reqt 01: "Include a conformance clause." TA for Reqt 01: "The specification includes a conformance clause." This was discussed ad nauseum in the old times, and I think we reached a conclusion similar to the above (altho' it's only documented in the historical archives now). I would not expect TAs to be written in imperative voice, or using RFC2119 jargon. -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 25 April 2005 14:08:06 UTC