- 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