- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 11:57:10 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Ref: http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/lc-issues#x101 I strongly disagree with the proposal to remove CP9.6 [1]. Originator states: >Extensions may be allowed in order to permit new functionality to be >introduced and tested prior to standardization. I agree with this. >There may not be any alternatives (interoperable or otherwise) to the use >of a particular extension, and in particular, it is completely impossible >for any specification that permits extensions to supply a workaround to >the use of every uninvented extension imaginable. This also strikes me as true. However, it has this implication: such content (lacking interoperable alternatives) is "interoperability impaired". >In other words, no specification that allows extensions can conform at >priority three, ever. If a specification allows "interoperability impaired" content to be considered to be equally conformant as "interoperable" content, I don't think that specification should qualify for the highest (AAA) SpecGL conformance level. SpecGL conformance is a (progressive) measure of such aspects as clarity, interoperability, testability, etc. Recommended resolution: Keep CP 9.6. (However, see also issue LC-81, about fine tuning it somewhat.) Regards, -Lofton. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-qaframe-spec-20030210/#Ck-operate-without-extension
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 13:55:40 UTC