Re: [SpecGL Draft] D3 Good Practice: Define precisely the extension mechanism

The only change I suggest is to delete 'precisely' from the GP

-Lynne

At 04:48 PM 6/23/2004, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Lynne, and WG.
>         (btw Lynne, I will accept all your review work in return ;) )
>
>
>D.3 Extensibility and Extensions
>
>Previous:
>---------------------------------------------
>Good Practice:
>         State the conditions under which extensions are prohibited. This 
> doesn't have to be complex, it may be a simple statement (e.g., 
> extensions are not allowed). The statement is often associated with the 
> conformance clause.
>---------------------------------------------
>
>Proposal:
>---------------------------------------------
>Good Practice:
>         Define precisely the extension mechanism
>
>The rest of the prose doesn't change for now. There might be few 
>reorganization of the techniques like:
>
>Remove
>         * Is the specification contain a section for extension?
>Change
>         * Is there a well defined mechanism to create extension?
>         by
>         * Is there a well defined template to create exension
>         My rationale: The mechanism is the whole thing, not only the 
> pattern like in CSS 3 Syntax: "-vendor-property".
>
>
>--
>Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
>W3C Conformance Manager
>*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
>