Re: SpecLite: extensions

At 06:38 PM 4/25/2004 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>The definition for Extension is the one that is in SpecGL.  Are you (and 
>Karl) proposing to change that definition?

Indeed, I'm proposing to change it.  I never noticed it in SpecGL, but it 
doesn't make sense -- the definition of "extension" really does seem more 
appropriate for "extensibility.

>If so, the WG should discuss this.

Sure.  Let it begin...

Does anyone object to adopting Karl's definition(s), which I quoted below?


>At 01:50 PM 4/24/2004 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote:
>>Catching up on non-QAH business, I have some comments.  Here is the first...
>>At 10:15 AM 4/14/2004 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote:
>>>The following is an expansion of text for the Extension section of 
>>>GLOSSARY Definitions:
>>>Extension:  The ability to incorporate functionality beyond what is 
>>>defined in the specification.   The ability to extend or enhance the 
>>>Extensible:  The ability of a specification to accept extensions in a 
>>>define way.  A specification is extensible if it provides a mechanism 
>>>for any party to create extensions
>>>Strict Conformance: conformance of an implementation that employs only 
>>>the requirements and/or functionality defined in the specification and 
>>>no more (i.e., no extensions to the specification are implemented).
>>I think the definition of extension is wrong here (also on the Wiki) -- 
>>it actually reads like a variation on the definition of 
>>"extensibility".  Here is what Karl wrote [1], which I like:
>>* Extensibility is the ability of a technology to accept extensions in
>>a defined way. If the extensibility mechanism is not defined, the
>>technology is not extensible.
>>* Extension is an additional feature to a technology which gives the
>>possibility to extend the behaviour of the technology.

Received on Sunday, 25 April 2004 20:58:22 UTC