Re: [office] Not specific to this attribute, example only

[robert_weir@us.ibm.com]

Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net> wrote on 08/03/2010 09:51:52 AM:

> 
> While proofing this morning I read:

> The defined values for the dr3d:texture-filter attribute are:
> disabled: texture filtering should not be enabled.
> enabled: texture filtering should be enabled.
> 
> Unrelated to this particular attribute there have been discussions 
> about how to extract all the shall/should/may clauses and this is an
> example of one of those.
> 
> My question is that in a future revision, should attribute settings 
> be advisory? 
> 

What is the alternative?

"disabled: texture filtering shall not be enabled."

But this is not really testable unless the semantics of "texture 
filtering" is fully defined.

or we could say:

"disabled: texture filtering is disabled." 

But that is just tautological.

In other words being more precise about the force of the clause (mandatory 
versus optional behavior) is a secondary issue compared to developing a 
testable description of the semantics.

-Rob