- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 14:46:57 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
>>I believe it is better to have _one_ authoritative requirement. Since >>most of us are better at reading human languages rather than RDF or >>XML, that requirement should be formulated in a human language. We may be better at reading human language that XML or RDF, but are we better at interpreting what was meant by the language? Standards need to be read and interpreted by implementers. Any language that more precisely defines requirements is better than one that doesn't. Also, any language that allows implementers to automatically generate test assertions (like XML) is a useful specification language. I've always believed that standards are read by implementers and standards committee members, not users. Thus, readability is an issue only as far as it can lead to precise and correct implementations. **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 14:45:39 UTC