- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 12:26:57 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Mark Skall wrote:
> In all seriousness, we must rely on the intelligence of our readers.
> These words all in the Dictionary.
The phrase "check that the requirement has been met" is not in my
dictionary. It would be very helpful you you could cut-and-paste the
definition from yours.
> If we don't want the spec to read as a novel (Alex, your words - and
> I agree) we can't go around defining perfectly clear "unambiguous"
> words.
What you consider perfectly clear "unambiguous" words results in very
different interpretation by this list members (not counting myself!).
I do not understand why you cannot see that people on this list
(myself excluding) clearly interpret the current definition
differently. For example, some say that the definition is fine because
it excludes behavioral specs, others say it is fine because it does
not exclude them. Clearly, there is a problem, even if you discard all
my posts.
Problems are expected at this early stage. What I do not understand is
why specific objections are ignored (answering "everything is fine" to
a specific question/objection is ignoring it).
Alex.
--
| HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark
www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite
| all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 14:26:59 UTC