- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 12:27:54 -0400
- To: www-qa@w3.org
At 9:54 -0600 2003-06-25, Lofton Henderson wrote: >Alt.2: no, the RFC2119 keywords are the recommended and preferred >way, but other language is permitted (e.g., marked-up imperative >voice statements), as long as the spec unambiguously defines what >are its conformance requirements and how are they identified in the >text. I choose Alt 2. Because I think it imposes a quality requirements (abstract) but not the vocabulary to make it. It's in a sense what Tantek was asking about test suite "do not impose a tool, but requirements on test". RFC 2119 is a tool, but not the only one available. And some may fit in a better way. We just have to be very careful and see if the abstract model for conformance can be defined without ambiguity. -- Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager http://www.w3.org/QA/ --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 25 June 2003 12:28:07 UTC