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

Re: Extension/Extensibility examples in W3C Specifications:

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 21:37:32 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040509211340.03773ec0@localhost>
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org

[...switching to QAWG...no new ideas here, but rather pondering SpecLite 
implementation details...]

At 04:13 PM 5/7/2004 -0400, Karl Dubost wrote:
>Wonderful work Lynne,

+1.

>Le 06 mai 2004, à 09:53, Lynne Rosenthal a écrit :
>[...]
>>Therefore, general definitions:
>>a) Extension is the incorporation of additional features, beyond what is 
>>defined in the specification.
>
>         Good :)

Here's something that came to mind as I was reading the various ideas in 
email...

We have been using the word "extension" in several context-sensitive 
ways.  Assuming that they were meaning-compatible, I wonder if we should, 
dictionary style, give some contextual alternatives in our "Definitions" or 
"Glossary" or whatever?  E.g., here are some slightly different usages I 
have seen (in the emails) in slightly different contexts:

1.) Because of the word "incorporation", Lynne's #a above sounds like a 
process, sort of like the gerund form of "to extend" 
(gerund:  "extending"?  "extension"?).  E.g., "Extension of standards can 
be dangerous, but can be worthwhile if carefully done."
2.) A more object-like usage, still at a conceptual level, as in "Adobe 
defined and AI10 exports several compositing extensions to SVG."
3.) In the email dialogs, I detect that "extension" is also used to refer 
to specific instances in (for example) specific content instances, e.g., "A 
private extension occurs right after the 23rd element of the SVG file."

I like the suggestion by Dom at the end of [1], "...given that the term 
'extensions' seems to give us troubles, it would be good to have the set
of definitions that the term 'extension' covers, so as to reduce the 
ambiguity later on."

I'm not sure whether or not Dom meant to include in SpecLite, but I think 
one interesting approach might be:  in the Extensibility module and in 
"Definitions", have 2-3 dictionary-like contextual variants that are 
compatible in meaning (*our* meaning, as we will hopefully resolve 
soon);  and, (maybe in an appendix?), a survey of other 
definitions/references that are found in usage (see [1]), and possibly some 
other useful supplemental material that would be too distracting if put 
in-line in the Extensions module.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004May/0010.html

Thoughts?

>[...]
>The more we dig into it... the more we identify difficulties :)

!!!

-Lofton.
Received on Sunday, 9 May 2004 23:40:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:15 GMT