W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webarch-comments@w3.org > July to September 2004

too positive on extensibility [was: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 13:39:18 -0500
To: Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
Cc: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <1095100758.6086.559.camel@dirk>

revising subject header field of this sub-thread to better suit
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004lc/lc-status-report.html

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 16:38, Dan Connolly wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:46, Dominique HazaŽl-Massieux wrote:
> > A few  points I noted while skimming through 
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-webarch-20040816/
> 
> and your 3rd point seems to be...
> 
> > Data formats
> > - in 4.2.3 "Experience suggests that the long term benefits of
> > extensibility generally outweigh the costs" is probably too positive
> > without consideration for a trade-off; while I think this will be one of
> > the topics on which the QA WG will comment, I suggest that some
> > qualification along "benefits of a well-defined extensibility
> > mechanism..." instead
> > 
> > - in 4.2.4, "Each application must define how namespaces interact and
> > what effect the namespace of an element has on the element's ancestors";
> > is this application-dependent, or language-dependent? I believe the
> > latter, at least in most cases
> > 
> > Also, maybe having a good practice associated to this section would be
> > of interest; although the TAG has still open issues on the topic, I
> > think a well-crafted Good practice for XML languages is achievable.
> 
> Please stand by for a reply in substance. I hope it won't take
> more than a few weeks.
-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 13 September 2004 18:38:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 April 2009 12:37:33 GMT