- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2003 16:10:25 -0400
- To: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
Alex, Though you have certainly not convinced me, you have, yet again, outlasted me. I need to get back to more pressing matters. Till next time . . . Mark At 01:20 PM 6/26/2003 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Mark Skall wrote: > > >>> 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. > > > You're missing the point. We don't need to verify this. > >Great! I have to verify my statements, but you do not need to verify >yours. How convenient. > > > It's called empirical evidence. We've already seen it with our own > > eyes. > >I have seen many developers missing MUSTs. > > > Again, we have years of experience with the RFC. > >And that experience shows that RFC 2119 is not always perfect. See >UAAG example. BTW, we have even more years of experience without the >RFC. > > > What you and Lofton are suggesting is a hypothetical premise that > > one can produce clear requirements. > >Not really. I am suggesting that it may be possible and needed to use >something other that RFC 2119 keywords, in some cases. > > > I think the logic you're referring to is Alex-logic. I like to use > > real logic. > >Whatever logic you use, please apply it to your own statements first. >It help to see that other people may have a point. > >Experience (or your consider empirical evidence), BTW, has nothing to >do with logic! Nobody experienced two parallel lines intersecting; >yet, space navigation is based on logic derived from that axiom. And, >vice versa, some people experience things that logic cannot yet >explain. > >Empirical evidence can often be interpreted and used in many ways. > > >> 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). > > > > What we're actually doing is invoking syntax along with semantics. > > Standards can actually do that . . . > >I did not say you cannot. I said you SHOULD NOT, not in this >particular case. > > >Would you also say that all specs MUST be written in English? >Logically, you should since language is also a part of the syntax. > >Alex. **************************************************************** Mark Skall Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division Information Technology Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 Voice: 301-975-3262 Fax: 301-590-9174 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2003 16:10:48 UTC