Re: [office] Another view on conformance?

[Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

Usual ducking and diving Rob?

2009/2/28  <robert_weir@us.ibm.com>:
> Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com> wrote on 02/28/2009 02:59:25 AM:
>>
>> http://tr.im/gRUC
>>
>> Rick Jelliffe on Conformance, with a view on ODF.
>> including:
>> <quote>Conformance is hard. ISO standards have a constraint that only
>> "verifiable" statements can be made in normative text: no airy fairy
>> fluff. And I certainly belong to the camp that says that the clauses
>> in IT standards (in particular document standards) should not only be
>> "verifiable" but that they should be objectively and automatically
>> verifiable in standard ways. </quote>
>>
>
> Certainly no disagreement with that. Normative statements must be
> testable.  And given a choice between something that requires manual/human
> judgement to test and something that can be tested automatically, choose a
> formulation that can be automated.  And given a choice between something
> that can be automated in a novel way (say an ad-hoc schema definition
> language) versus something that can be automated using an existing
> standard, e.g., a standardized schema definition language, then go with
> the standard technique.
>
> However, on the last point I think it is something we aspire to but not
> always achieve.

It's hard in a couple places, so don't do it at all?

What are you afraid of?

-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
Docbook FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk