- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 17:05:51 -0700
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 08:44 AM 1/20/03 -0500, Karl Dubost wrote: >AI-2003-1-13-1 to draft new language for checkpoint 9.4 >http://www.w3.org/QA/WG/ActionItems > >Now >>Checkpoint 9.4. Use a standard mechanism to define the extension. >>[Priority 3] >> >>To fulfill this checkpoint, a specification MUST provide a standard >>way of defining the extension. It is not applicable if extensions >>are not allowed. >> >>This helps to ensure predictable handling of extensions, that is, >>its recognition as such and the appropriate actions (i.e., to >>ignore or to implement). >> >>Examples & Techniques for this checkpoint. > >Proposition > >Checkpoint 9.4. Define a abstract mechanism to create extension [Priority 3] > >To fulfill this checkpoint a specification MUST provide a unique way of >defining the extension, each time is it authorized by the specification. >It is not applicable if extensions are not allowed. I'm unclear whether this captures what I thought we meant by "standard way to define extension", or whether on the other hand it changes the meaning. Can we revisit this Wednesday (if only to clarify the intended meaning to me)? -Lofton.
Received on Tuesday, 21 January 2003 19:03:57 UTC