W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > April 2003

Re: discussion of LC comments on Extensions

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:06:44 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030428110017.02592710@terminal.rockynet.com>
To: www-qa@w3.org

Correction, I misread one of Lynne's proposals...

At 10:53 AM 4/28/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>[...]
>At 03:09 PM 4/25/03 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>[...]
>
>>(2) Add CP to require specs to specify how an implementation should 
>>handle extensions it doesn't understand  e.g., ignore and continue.
>
>Disagree.  We do not have the domain expertise, across W3C technologies, 
>to say what is the best response.  In some critical applications, HALT is 
>the best response.  This should be the purview of the individual spec.  In 
>fact, maybe the individual profile of the spec.  (E.g., what you want to 
>do when you encounter such a situation in an air-traffic radar profile is 
>probably different than what what you want to do in a blog-browsing profile.)

Sorry, misread this.  I'm a little leery of "specify", because of the 
possibility that particular profiles (e.g., that might be written after 
"Rec") might have need for different responses.  But I haven't thought it 
through completely yet.

Maybe "address" instead of "specify"?  Maybe something with the sense of: 
"specify a default, which may be pre-empted by the conformance requirements 
of [...profiles or ...]"?

-Lofton.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 13:04:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT