- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:04:10 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
* Jeremy Carroll wrote: >> Hmm. I am not sure whether this would be useful. What is an extension >> depends on context. Specifications are to say what is an extension and >> what is not. If they do not, an extension in their context is something >> (a language element) that is not defined in the relevant specifications. >> If you want a general definition, you would need to look at what is >> considered an extension by existing technologies and look at common >> properties. I'd say an extension is something for which the relevant >> specifications do not define processing consistent with the meaning of >> this very something. >So thinking about a rewording of your last sentence > >"An extension is something which >defines additional processing that is not >part of the base specifications" I would say that any xsl:template[@match] element defines processing that is not part of the XSLT specification even though I would consider this additional processing consistent with the meaning of xsl:template elements. >I think the word *additional* is crucial - an extension which negates >the base specification is not an extension but a change. Of course, >quite what constitutes "negating" is domain dependent. I don't think so, changes make something ambiguous, you can infer different things from the same thing prior and after the change, even though the input remains the same. With an extension you have different things where you naturally infer different things from.
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 09:04:37 UTC