- From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 08:36:37 -0500
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, www-qa-wg@w3.org
At 17:05 -0700 2003-01-21, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>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.
what you don't understand I guess is the word abstract, I guess. I
have used it with the intended meaning of model. So if it's unclear
for you, there's a slight chance it's unclear for others.
for example in CSS3, it would be the fact to have a mechanism which
permits extension but only in this way
-vendor-propriety: value;
Where the extension must always start with a dash.
Where after the dash you must have the vendor's name, for example: moz
and finally the usual semantics of propriety with the right characters.
This is an abstract mechanism or model as you wish, which is define
for all cases. It's theoretical.
:)
--
Karl Dubost / W3C - Conformance Manager
http://www.w3.org/QA/
--- Be Strict To Be Cool! ---
Received on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 08:37:46 UTC