W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > August 2004

review of XML.com extensibility and versioning article

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:36:25 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040807092216.00aa6398@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

As assigned, I review the XML.com article on extensibility [1] and I agree 
with David's assessment [2].  SpecLite addresses the same issues/concerns 
with respect to extensibility and as David says, we don't address 
versioning, because we are focused on a single 'edition' of a specification.

I do suggest making a few additions to SpecGL to reflect some of what the 
article says....

1.  In Scope and Goals, indicate that versioning is out of scope.
Add after 3rd sentence, before sentence, "The goal...."
"It is about one 'edition' of a specification, so versioning is not addressed."

2.  In D3, Extensibility and Extensions, P1 What does this mean.
Add at the end, "If extensions are allowed, the next question is where will 
they be allowed."

Under Related:  Add: the XML.com article and Versioning XML Languages, 
Proposed TAG Finding 16 Nov 2003 [3]

3.  As I reread this section, I noticed several typos
In GP: Define error handling for unknown extensions --- multiple 
occurrences of
s/developpers/ developers/

--lynne

[1] http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2004/07/21/design.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jul/0024.html
[3] www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning
Received on Saturday, 7 August 2004 13:39:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:17 GMT