- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 20:09:39 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
The use of RFC2119 was a topic on last monday's QAWG telecon. The discussion and resolution was as follows: It was pointed out that *everyone* is broadening the use of the keywords beyond the original communications/protocols context. Based on creative interpolation and extrapolation. The context and usage of the keywords has been broadened, they are in common usage beyond communications/protocols applications, they are widely used in diverse applications in W3C with creative extrapolation from RFC2119's implicit context, etc. [Note: the new W3C Process Document also uses these keywords] Additionally, the other part of our resolution is to suggest that W3C (possibly Comm and QA) need to write a Note, a modern interpretation of RFC2119 and how to use it across diverse W3C standards. lynne At 05:37 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Dan Connolly wrote: > > > "Conformance requirements: the specification MUST define the subject > > matter of the specification" > > > > how can I tell whether my spec has defined the subject matter of the > > specification or not? > >This requirement is not "testable" in general, of course. In other >words, it is impractical to give you an algorithm that will find scope >definition given an arbitrary spec. > >In most cases however, it is possible to search for the word "scope" >in the spec text, read abstract/introduction sections, or use other >approaches to find spec's scope. Spec authors should be able to find >the scope definition and should make it easy for others to do the >same. > > > SpecGL uses MUST in the sense of RFC2119, but RFC2119 says, of > > MUST/MAY/SHOULD keywords... > > > > In particular, they MUST only be used where it is actually > > required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has > > potential for causing harm > > > > What interoperability failure results from the > > failure of a spec to define conformance? > >We are talking about scope definition, not conformance definition here >(though a lack of any conformance definition is also bad). > >The MUST in question limits behavior which has potential for causing >harm. Potentially harmful behavior in this case is omitting scope >definition. Absence of a [well-defined] scope is harmful both for spec >authors (they tend to document things they should not care about, >increasing the amount of their work and the complexity of the spec) >and for spec users that will have to spend extra time figuring out >whether the spec applies to their case, often making mistakes. > > > Don't use MUST to constrain specs; specs aren't software agents. > >RFC2119 scope is not limited to specs about software agents. > >Alex.
Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 20:09:59 UTC