[Fwd: Re: too positive on extensibility [was: random comments on 2nd LC of WebArch]]

Here is the reply to our comments on extensibility in Webarch, and the
results of the TAG/QA WG teleconf; I would like this to be discussed at
our next teleconf, so that I can give an answer to the TAG ASAP. Feel
free to comment on it before then :)

Dom

-----Message transféré-----
> From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
> To: dom@w3.org, www-tag@w3.org, public-webarch-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: too positive on extensibility [was: random comments on 2nd LC  of  WebArch]
> Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:14:34 +0200
> 
> Hello dom,
> 
> Regarding your comment forwarded by DanC
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webarch-comments/2004JulSep/0068.html
> 
> > > - in 4.2.3 "Experience suggests that the long term benefits of
> > > extensibility generally outweigh the costs" is probably too positive
> > > without consideration for a trade-off;
> 
> please see the new introductory text at
> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/2004/webarch-20040928/Overview.html#ext-version
> 
> > In a perfect world, language designers would invent languages that
> > perfectly met the requirements presented to them, the requirements
> > would be a perfect model of the world, they would never change over
> > time, and all implementations would be perfectly interoperable because
> > the specifications would have no variability.
> 
> > In the real world, language designers imperfectly address the
> > requirements as they interpret them, the requirements inaccurately
> > model the world, conflicting requirements are presented, and they
> > change over time. As a result, designers negotiate with users, make
> > compromises, and often introduce extensibility mechanisms so that itÂ’s
> > possible to work around problems in the short term. In the long term,
> > they produce multiple versions of their languages, as the problem, and
> > theyÂ’re understanding of the problem, evolves. The resulting
> > variability in specifications languages, and implementations
> > introduces interoperability costs.
> 
> Later on we more clearly differentiate between extensibility and
> versioning, as agreed at the TAG/QA joint telcon.
> 
> We believe this addresses your concern; do you agree?
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C/ERCIM
mailto:dom@w3.org