- From: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>
- Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2004 09:36:25 -0400
- To: www-qa-wg@w3.org
As assigned, I review the XML.com article on extensibility [1] and I agree with David's assessment [2]. SpecLite addresses the same issues/concerns with respect to extensibility and as David says, we don't address versioning, because we are focused on a single 'edition' of a specification. I do suggest making a few additions to SpecGL to reflect some of what the article says.... 1. In Scope and Goals, indicate that versioning is out of scope. Add after 3rd sentence, before sentence, "The goal...." "It is about one 'edition' of a specification, so versioning is not addressed." 2. In D3, Extensibility and Extensions, P1 What does this mean. Add at the end, "If extensions are allowed, the next question is where will they be allowed." Under Related: Add: the XML.com article and Versioning XML Languages, Proposed TAG Finding 16 Nov 2003 [3] 3. As I reread this section, I noticed several typos In GP: Define error handling for unknown extensions --- multiple occurrences of s/developpers/ developers/ --lynne [1] http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2004/07/21/design.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Jul/0024.html [3] www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning
Received on Saturday, 7 August 2004 13:39:34 UTC