- From: Alan Chuter <achuter@technosite.es>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:01:33 +0200
- To: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Miguel Garcia wrote: > PD: No objections to the suggested namespace > (org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.ext.*) for non-mobileOK extensions of the > Checker Suggested in [1]. Is it a good idea to have third parties (even if there are WG members involved) creating packages in the org.w3 namespace? As the checker is extensible anyone can create extensions, but it would be confusing and unmanageable if they were to all to start creating org.w3.* packages, potentially overlapping each other. In this case the proposal is to include the extension in the source tree but this won't always be the case. I suggest that it would be better for each developer to use their own namespace. regards, Alan [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009May/0000.html -- Alan Chuter Departamento de Usabilidad y Accesibilidad Consultor Technosite - Grupo Fundosa Fundación ONCE Tfno.: 91 121 03 30 Fax: 91 375 70 51 achuter@technosite.es http://www.technosite.es
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 09:04:39 UTC