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

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

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 13:27:38 -0400
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040628132710.01ccbf28@mailserver.nist.gov>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:16 GMT