- From: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:19:46 -0400
- To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>, Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Cc: www-qa-wg@w3.org
- Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20040427160246.03ed5c68@mailserver.nist.gov>
>Sure. Let it begin... > >Does anyone object to adopting Karl's definition(s), which I quoted below? > >-Lofton. 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 root. 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 **************************************************************** 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 Email: skall@nist.gov ****************************************************************
Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 16:38:59 UTC