- From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:19:37 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Kirill wrote: >Our current definition may leave impression that a technology always >has a closed set of modules. It sure does. I think that was the intent. We were thinking of modules in the sense proposed for XSLT 2.0 (core, serialization, schema awareness, backward compatibility, etc.). >I think we could add to the note for G5 that spec may allow for >additional modules, should define extensibility framework and >conformance requirements for modules to be added. >An example could be SOAP Messaging Framework (SOAP Part 1) and SOAP >Encodings. SOAP Part 2 defines one SOAP Encoding (also called >"Section 5"), a module according to our definition. Isn't this more like an extension? XPath comes with a set of functions, and you can add in more functions, but the rules constraining the added functions are extension-type (GL 9) rules. .................David Marston
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 16:20:20 UTC