- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:25:21 -0700
- To: Dominique Hazaël-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, www-qa@w3.org
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