- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:27:38 -0400
- To: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
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 *** > >
Received on Monday, 28 June 2004 13:27:59 UTC