- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 24 Apr 2003 09:06:13 -0500
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 18:37, 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. Yes, and since it's not testable, it seems counterproductive to phrase it using rfc2119:MUST. > 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. Nicely put. Please let the spec say that. > > 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. If you really insist on using rfc2119:MUST, you'll have to give me a testable criterion to use it with. > 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. OK, so never mind software; yes, RFC2119 constraints can be applied to any sort of agent: software, a person, a group, or some combination. But a spec is none of these. > Alex. In case it's not clear, I'm not satisfied by this response to my last call comment. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 10:06:05 UTC