- From: Francois Daoust <fd@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 11:58:37 +0200
- To: achuter@technosite.es
- CC: MWI BPWG Public <public-bpwg@w3.org>
Alan Chuter wrote: > Miguel Garcia wrote: >> PD: No objections to the suggested namespace >> (org.w3c.mwi.mobileok.basic.ext.*) for non-mobileOK extensions of the >> Checker > > Suggested in [1]. Is it a good idea to have third parties (even if there > are WG members involved) creating packages in the org.w3 namespace? As > the checker is extensible anyone can create extensions, but it would be > confusing and unmanageable if they were to all to start creating > org.w3.* packages, potentially overlapping each other. In this case the > proposal is to include the extension in the source tree but this won't > always be the case. I suggest that it would be better for each developer > to use their own namespace. I agree that developers should use their own namespace when they develop their own extensions. The suggestion is for extensions whose code will appear next to the mobileOK Checker library in: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2007/mobileok-ref/ It think it is a good idea to have a few extensions there (at least one, that is), partly because an extension such as support for file:// URIs that Yeliz is currently working on is very useful, partly because it serves as examples to encourage other developments based on the library. So the problem is perhaps more generic than just the namespace: does the working group agree to have the code of the file extension hosted with the library? (in a separate folder, of course) Francois. > > regards, > > Alan > > [1] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-mobileok-checker/2009May/0000.html > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 June 2009 09:59:08 UTC