- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:06:44 -0600
- To: www-qa@w3.org
Correction, I misread one of Lynne's proposals... At 10:53 AM 4/28/03 -0600, Lofton Henderson wrote: >[...] >At 03:09 PM 4/25/03 -0400, Lynne Rosenthal wrote: >[...] > >>(2) Add CP to require specs to specify how an implementation should >>handle extensions it doesn't understand e.g., ignore and continue. > >Disagree. We do not have the domain expertise, across W3C technologies, >to say what is the best response. In some critical applications, HALT is >the best response. This should be the purview of the individual spec. In >fact, maybe the individual profile of the spec. (E.g., what you want to >do when you encounter such a situation in an air-traffic radar profile is >probably different than what what you want to do in a blog-browsing profile.) Sorry, misread this. I'm a little leery of "specify", because of the possibility that particular profiles (e.g., that might be written after "Rec") might have need for different responses. But I haven't thought it through completely yet. Maybe "address" instead of "specify"? Maybe something with the sense of: "specify a default, which may be pre-empted by the conformance requirements of [...profiles or ...]"? -Lofton.
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 13:04:36 UTC