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

Re: [Fwd: Re: too positive on extensibility [was: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch]]

From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 14:40:11 -0400
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20041005143441.01d689d0@wsxg03.nist.gov>
To: Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux <dom@w3.org>, <www-qa-wg@w3.org>

Seems acceptable to me.  I believe they addressed our concerns.  Its great 
that they point to our Variability document.   The only thing that bothers 
me (but not enough to make a stink) is the new Good practice -
'Good practice: Extensibility conformance'

I don't know what extensibility conformance is?  And a Good practice 
implies it something that you want people to do.  Glad to see the statement 
below, stating that MUST NOT break conformance.   Perhaps the formatting 
will help make this cleaner.

-lynne



At 10:26 AM 10/5/2004, Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux wrote:
>Here is the reply to our comments on extensibility in Webarch, and the
>results of the TAG/QA WG teleconf; I would like this to be discussed at
>our next teleconf, so that I can give an answer to the TAG ASAP. Feel
>free to comment on it before then :)
>
>Dom
>
>-----Message transféré-----
> > From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> > To: dom@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: too positive on extensibility [was: random comments on 2nd 
> LC  of        WebArch]
> > Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:14:34 +0200
> >
> > Hello dom,
> >
> > Regarding your comment forwarded by DanC
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0068.html
> >
> > > > - in 4.2.3 "Experience suggests that the long term benefits of
> > > > extensibility generally outweigh the costs" is probably too positive
> > > > without consideration for a trade-off;
> >
> > please see the new introductory text at
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html#ext-version
> >
> > > In a perfect world, language designers would invent languages that
> > > perfectly met the requirements presented to them, the requirements
> > > would be a perfect model of the world, they would never change over
> > > time, and all implementations would be perfectly interoperable because
> > > the specifications would have no variability.
> >
> > > In the real world, language designers imperfectly address the
> > > requirements as they interpret them, the requirements inaccurately
> > > model the world, conflicting requirements are presented, and they
> > > change over time. As a result, designers negotiate with users, make
> > > compromises, and often introduce extensibility mechanisms so that it¬’s
> > > possible to work around problems in the short term. In the long term,
> > > they produce multiple versions of their languages, as the problem, and
> > > they¬’re understanding of the problem, evolves. The resulting
> > > variability in specifications languages, and implementations
> > > introduces interoperability costs.
> >
> > Later on we more clearly differentiate between extensibility and
> > versioning, as agreed at the TAG/QA joint telcon.
> >
> > We believe this addresses your concern; do you agree?
>--
>Dominique Haza√ęl-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
>W3C/ERCIM
>mailto:dom@w3.org
Received on Tuesday, 5 October 2004 18:40:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:13:18 GMT