- From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:38:56 -0400
- To: public-webarch-comments@w3.org
- Cc: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Message-id: <87wtxrai0f.fsf@nwalsh.com>
/ Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> was heard to say: | * 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/ We've made several of the changes you suggest. The text has been made more explicit about the tradoffs involved and links have been added to the qaframe-spec and spec-variability documents. Do you find the revised text satisfactory? Be seeing you, norm -- Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Everything should be made as simple as http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
Received on Friday, 15 October 2004 19:39:21 UTC