[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oiic-formation-discuss] Informative clauses
2008/6/23 <firstname.lastname@example.org>: > > "Dave Pawson" <email@example.com> wrote on 06/23/2008 11:59:17 AM: >> >> 2.4.2 Base Settings >> >> >> >> The <config:config-item> element contains all base settings. The value >> >> of the setting is stored in the element. >> >> >> >> This is (barely) informative. >> >> No shall. >> >> No may >> >> Not marked as informative. >> >> >> > >> > It defines a schema fragment, so that creates a number of testable >> > provisions that will be subsumed into the schema validation portion of >> > the >> > conformance test. >> > >> Just count how many assumptions you've made to respond like that Rob. >> >> Reading the contents of the standard (and no more) that's basically >> not a testable clause. > > That clause gives a schema fragment. Of course that is testable. This is > very basic. Please let me know that you see and agree with that assertion. > Otherwise we cannot have a meaningful discussion on this topic. Then we can't have a meaningful discussion Rob. There is nothing in the spec that requires a vendor to be conformant to that fragment of the schema at that point. If, elsewhere, it requires conformance in the round, then fine. The spec is littered with ... text like that. Unclear, no normative requirements, plain bad spec writing IMHO. If you want to infer what is not present, don't be surprised when vendors claim compliance by ignoring your output because you have put a different interpretation on it to them. Your compliance tests will be worth nothing.