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

Re: SpecLite: extensions

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:14:59 -0400
Message-Id: <42B7663C-9D0C-11D8-A388-000A95718F82@w3.org>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
For clarifications of what I have written

Le 24 avr. 2004, à 15:50, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>  I think the definition of extension is wrong here (also on the Wiki) 
> -- it actually reads like a variation on the definition of 
> "extensibility".  Here is what Karl wrote [1], which I like:
>  [[
>  * Extensibility is the ability of a technology to accept extensions in
>  a defined way. If the extensibility mechanism is not defined, the
>  technology is not extensible.
>  * Extension is an additional feature to a technology which gives the
>  possibility to extend the behaviour of the technology.
>  ]]
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0034.html

The important part for me is to think in terms of a consortium which 
defines a normative technology.

- A technology is defined and exists.
- Every technologies are extensible by nature.
	If you create a screw driver, you can always use it in another way or 
add features to it.

-> Now in the context of W3C, why defining extensibility and extensions 
at all. Because we want to be sure to be flexible AND careful. 
Extensibility is not anymore a common word of the nature of every 
technologies but a tool with a very specific semantics in the context 
of a standard.

	Extensibility is a mechanism you create on top of a specification. The 
most important term in my sentence is
	---> *in a defined way*

This is the key. We let you extend the technology, but it has to be 
done by respecting a minimum of criteria, because we think it's 
important for future interoperability.

Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***

Received on Monday, 3 May 2004 10:16:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:14:32 UTC