Le 13 févr. 2014 à 03:40, Jeff Jaffe <[email protected]> a écrit : > Thanks for the pointer. I want to make sure I understand the issue in more > detail.
To add on the good post by Anne. >> http://annevankesteren.nl/2014/02/monkey-patch Monkey Patching reminds me of what we talked about in QA Framework: Specification Guidelines [1]. Basically, the W3C process might help but it's not the only reason why this is happening. The relevant sections are in 2.4.3 Extensibility and Extensions [2], which is partly what Anne is talking about in his post. People want to customize but do it in ways which constrain the system for the future or even contradict the original feature. Requirement 11: Address extensibility. Good Practice 18: If extensibility is allowed, define an extension mechanism. Good Practice 19: Warn extension creators to create extensions that do not interfere with conformance. Good Practice 20: Define error-handling for unknown extensions. These are defined from the point of view of the original feature. Anne's post is about the specification using the original feature in terms which are either undefined in the original spec or contradictory to the original spec. [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/ [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/qaframe-spec/#extensions -- Karl Dubost 🐄 http://www.la-grange.net/karl/
