Re: [tag] Groups - TA Anatomy V0.4 (AnatomyTA-v04.doc) uploaded

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

On 21/09/2007, stephen.green@systml.co.uk <stephen.green@systml.co.uk> wrote:
> But this does seem to clash somewhat with the strong use case of
> the practice of copying items from the spec straight into the TA
> (strong in that we agree it avoids the possibility of varying the
> normative expression of the spec requirement item).

I guess it's phrasing Stephen?
The key point seems to be avoiding contradictions with the requirement.
No test statement should take priority over the requirement which makes
this a QA issue to me. Mandating no use of those words in a TA is
pointless and very confusing.


>
> Also there is the use of the Ref to the spec item which was agreed
> could and maybe should be used to avoid redundancy. Since I was
> concerned that the links to IDs of the spec items could be weak and
> prone to breaking so argued for including actual prose too, maybe
> there is a possible best practice here to use a Ref + predicate
> rather than Ref + prose, so avoiding those RFC2119 keywords.

IMHO this will be a luxury! It's only fragile if the two documents
aren't available at the same time/place (or the link is bad)



regards

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