W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > January 2003

Re: AI-2003-1-13-1 - Checkpoint 9.4 rewording - done

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:36:37 -0500
Message-Id: <a05200f10ba544d488e99@[24.202.71.17]>
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org

At 17:05 -0700 2003-01-21, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Checkpoint 9.4. Define a abstract mechanism to create extension [Priority 3]
>>
>>To fulfill this checkpoint a specification MUST provide a unique 
>>way of defining the extension, each time is it authorized by the 
>>specification. It is not applicable if extensions are not allowed.
>
>I'm unclear whether this captures what I thought we meant by 
>"standard way to define extension", or whether on the other hand it 
>changes the meaning.

what you don't understand I guess is the word abstract, I guess. I 
have used it with the intended meaning of model. So if it's unclear 
for you, there's a slight chance it's unclear for others.

for example in CSS3, it would be the fact to have a mechanism which 
permits extension but only in this way
	-vendor-propriety: value;
Where the extension must always start with a dash.
Where after the dash you must have the vendor's name, for example: moz
and finally the usual semantics of propriety with the right characters.

This is an abstract mechanism or model as you wish, which is define 
for all cases. It's theoretical.

:)




-- 
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
           http://www.w3.org/QA/

      --- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 08:37:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:12 GMT