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@[]>
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

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:29 UTC