Re: SpecLite: extensions

For clarifications of what I have written

Le 24 avr. 2004, à 15:50, Lofton Henderson a écrit :
>  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.
>  ]]
>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa/2004Mar/0034.html

The important part for me is to think in terms of a consortium which 
defines a normative technology.

- A technology is defined and exists.
- Every technologies are extensible by nature.
	If you create a screw driver, you can always use it in another way or 
add features to it.

-> Now in the context of W3C, why defining extensibility and extensions 
at all. Because we want to be sure to be flexible AND careful. 
Extensibility is not anymore a common word of the nature of every 
technologies but a tool with a very specific semantics in the context 
of a standard.

	Extensibility is a mechanism you create on top of a specification. The 
most important term in my sentence is
	---> *in a defined way*

This is the key. We let you extend the technology, but it has to be 
done by respecting a minimum of criteria, because we think it's 
important for future interoperability.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***