- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:23:31 -0400
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Message-id: <87u0svdbv0.fsf@nwalsh.com>
* KD 013 4.2.3. Extensibility """ Good practice: Extensibility mechanisms A specification SHOULD provide mechanisms that allow any party to create extensions that do not interfere with conformance to the original specification.""" This Good Practice is too general. Extensibility MUST NOT be a SHOULD. Extensibility is a very delicate topic which has to be considered carefully by a group designing a format. It CAN be absolutely wise to forbid extension. Choosing extensibility leads to benefits and drawbacks. See for this topic http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ 1. If extensions is considered as beneficial, the specification MUST provide a mechanism to do so. 2. If such a mecanism is given, it MUST not interfere with the conformance of the section I would add a link from this section to the QA Framework Specification Guidelines and to the Variability in Specifications document. http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Our years, our debts, and our enemies http://nwalsh.com/ | are always more numerous than we | imagine.--Charles Nodier
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 19:23:46 UTC