CP9.6, "turn off extensions"

• From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
• Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 10:26:13 -0700
• To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
• Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030113102100.01f04c60@rockynet.com>

Regarding AR-026 about SpecGL checkpoint 9.6...

Maybe "Require that implementations provide interoperable alternatives to 
extensions" would be a better way to phrase the checkpoint.  It better 
encompasses a "turn off" mode, equivalent alternative content, etc.  (It 
could even subsume a "not applicable" clause:  if it can be convincingly 
documented that a given extension does not adversely impact 
interoperability, then....)

Thoughts?

-Lofton.

Received on Monday, 13 January 2003 12:24:03 UTC