- From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 16:32:50 +0200
- To: public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>, "Charles Pritchard" <chuck@jumis.com>
On Sun, 04 Sep 2011 22:14:06 +0200, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com> wrote: > Apologies, I've only recently caught up with tr/domcore. Glad you are reviewing! > http://www.w3.org/TR/domcore/#exceptions Please review http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/domcore/raw-file/tip/Overview.html as there have been significant changes since the last TR/. (Not in the section you quote though.) > "When vendor-neutral extensions to this specification are needed, either > this specification can be updated accordingly, or an extension > specification can be written that overrides the requirements in this > specification. When someone applying this specification to their > activities decides that they will recognise the requirements of such an > extension specification, it becomes an applicable specification for the > purposes of conformance requirements in this specification." FWIW, we copied this concept from HTML. > What would an extension specification look like? Some concepts are used in other specifications, such as "cloning steps" and "media type" in HTML. A new specification could also introduce a new type of node for instance. > An example template for a DOM Core extension specification would make it > a lot easier on us to build new specs/port existing ones to DOM Core and > maintain a similar presentation. Lets cross that bridge when we come to it. > It'd help with flipping between the extension specification and the DOM > Core spec, if styles and sections are similar. As DOM Core is still a > living spec, I would not want to maintain diff files/patches. I'd prefer > to just reference DOM Core. Agreed; hopefully they are not needed. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Received on Monday, 5 September 2011 14:33:26 UTC