- From: Alex Rousskov <rousskov@measurement-factory.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 14:50:43 -0600 (MDT)
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Mark Skall <mark.skall@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > it allows extensions to negate the original spec but only after a > negotiation which meets Mark's criteria of not "break[ing]" the other > parts of the spec. A non-obvious side-effect of the model is that those who do not actively participate in the negotiation may be affected (broken) by negotiated extensions. Consider, for example, a tool that visualizes and analyses traces. Such a tool has to handle post-negotiated extensions but cannot affect the results of the negotiation. Thus, it may understand the portion of a trace up to the extension negotiation, but may not be able to grok the rest of the trace (beyond trivial syntax analyses). It is not clear to me whether this side-effect meets the intent behind Mark's criteria or is good/desirable in a general sense. Alex.
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 17:10:55 UTC