- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 11:06:00 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- cc: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa@w3.org
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Mark Skall wrote: > Don't penalize? We're in the standards business. I don't think > that imposing a standard on spec authors is any more a penalty than > imposing a standard on implementers. There are very good reasons > for standards. In this case, the standard ensures clear enumeration > of requirements. Why are we afraid of asking our fellow spec > writers to do as they say (use standards)? Imposing a good standard is good. The standard should be "clear enumeration of requirements". Imposing a tool is not good. The tool is "RFC 2119 keywords". Recommending a good tool is good. That is why I prefer "SHOULD use RFC 2119 keywords" to "MUST use RFC 2119 keywords". > You cannot programmatically verify that you are getting people's > attention. (Some of us have a very short attention span). The whole > purpose of using tried and true keywords is that we know it will get > people's attention because we've used them time and again. You cannot programmatically verify that are getting people's attention. > There is now a conditioned reflex on the part of the reader to stop > every time he or she sees a MUST and say "that's a requirement". You cannot programmatically verify that a reader has a conditioned reflex. Again and again, you do not apply your logic to your own comments. IMO, your logic is too rigid and leads to a "we cannot do anything" dead-end. The above statements is a good illustration. > What "heavy-handed" approach? We have requirements all through > SpecGL, OpsGL and TestGL. Why is this one heavy-handed and not the > others? IMHO, this one is much more important than many of the > others. Other requirements [should] talk about good spec qualities. This requirement talks about a tool to achieve good spec qualities. There is a big difference (as big as the difference between MUST and SHOULD). Alex. -- | HTTP performance - Web Polygraph benchmark www.measurement-factory.com | HTTP compliance+ - Co-Advisor test suite | all of the above - PolyBox appliance
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 13:06:03 UTC