W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: question for Kirill

From: <david_marston@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 16:19:37 -0400
To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9387E88A.FE184246-ON85256D0C.006E5FE5@lotus.com>

Kirill wrote:

>Our current definition may leave impression that a technology always
>has a closed set of modules.

It sure does. I think that was the intent. We were thinking of modules
in the sense proposed for XSLT 2.0 (core, serialization, schema
awareness, backward compatibility, etc.).

>I think we could add to the note for G5 that spec may allow for
>additional modules, should define extensibility framework and
>conformance requirements for modules to be added.
>An example could be SOAP Messaging Framework (SOAP Part 1) and SOAP
>Encodings. SOAP Part 2 defines one SOAP Encoding (also called
>"Section 5"), a module according to our definition.

Isn't this more like an extension? XPath comes with a set of functions,
and you can add in more functions, but the rules constraining the
added functions are extension-type (GL 9) rules.
.................David Marston
Received on Friday, 18 April 2003 16:20:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:43:33 UTC