Re: SpecLite: extensions

>Sure.  Let it begin...
>Does anyone object to adopting Karl's definition(s), which I quoted below?

I object (sounds like a courtroom).  I think we are really confusing the 
issue.  I never liked the idea of confusing 2 terms that sound alike - 
extensions and extensibility.  However, if we're going to use them then the 
proposed definitions make no sense to me.

We all know what extensions are - they are additional functionality (or 
additional features, I really don't care which term we use), provided by an 
implementation, above and beyond what's specified in a standard or 
rec.  However, extensibility typically refers to the ability of a document 
(or a technology or process or . . .) to be extended (e.g., by providing 
"hooks" or other placeholders).  This ability or capability to be extended 
has nothing to do with extensions, which are additional 
functionality/features in an implementation. A technology cannot be 
extensible to allow for extensions because extensions (by definition) are 
provided by an implementation, not a technology. Extensibility and 
extensions are 2 separate concepts which happen to be derived from the same 

In summary, I don't see the need to use and define the term 
"extensibility", but if we do it should not be defined so narrowly.

My 2 cents.


Mark Skall
Chief, Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing Division
Information Technology Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8970
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970

Voice: 301-975-3262
Fax:   301-590-9174

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:38:59 UTC