Re: "The essentials of a specification"

At 10:16 AM 1/13/2004 +0100, Dominique Hazaël-Massieux wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I found that TimBL's "The essentials of a specification" document [1]

Where/how did you find this obscure bit?!

>has many similarities with QA WG's SpecGL:
>- RFC 2119 conformance keywords usage
>- normative/non-normative part of a spec
>- definitions of conformance terms
>
>... but with sometimes a slightly different approach:
>- it insists more on conformance terms (such as 'well-formed XML 1.0
>document') than on classes of product (which would be simply 'a
>document' in SpecGL's approach)
>- it asks that normative requirements are expressed as a function of
>these conformance terms, rather than as a set of constrains on the
>classes of products
>
>Just food for thoughts...

It's an interesting  read.  Should we reference it from QA Library, or 
include it in SpecGL's non-normative References, or ...?

-Lofton.

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 10:25:48 UTC