Re: [w3c/manifest] Chore(extensions): add link to registry (closes #452) (#458)

thanks for making those changes, and of course i like the idea of a registry for extensions!
but as you know, i think that there are better options to implementing a registry pattern than just putting up a wiki somewhere and assuming that it will self-regulate. but that's a different discussion to have.
in the specs where we use extensibility and registries, we take great care to specify the processing model so that extensions are always optional, must allow for meaningful processing even when a client does not support the extensions, and are self contained in the sense that extensions can never change the semantics of anything outside of their own scope. this guidance helps to discourage the creation of extensions that are breaking changes instead of evolutionary ones.
i have wanted to write about this for a little while, actually, because i think that this is a pattern that doesn't get as much recognition as it should. let me write up a little blog post about this, and then i'll link to it.

---
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/w3c/manifest/pull/458#issuecomment-212984861