cc @rgommers One thing that may need to change is the figure in the "in scope" section. This currently says TBD.

And one consideration not addressed in the specification is whether extensions can be versioned independently of the main (non-extension) namespace. Atm, the linalg extension resides in a separate sub-namespace, and the specification is not clear on whether the linalg sub-namespace should also include a version. We may want to make that more clear.

One thing that may need to change is the figure in the "in scope" section. This currently says TBD.

I'll update that figure.

And one consideration not addressed in the specification is whether extensions can be versioned independently of the main (non-extension) namespace. Atm, the linalg extension resides in a separate sub-namespace, and the specification is not clear on whether the linalg sub-namespace should also include a version. We may want to make that more clear.

I'd say no, it's just optional but it's not a completely separate thing with its own versioning scheme.

I'll update that figure.

Thanks!