MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: WSIA 5/9/2002: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
Eilon, this is really nice, thanks for continually trying to rationalize
this particular requirement. I think it is a particularly important one.
The first three are clear. My opinion is that reqt 4 is not at the same
granularity as the other three reqmts. I would divide 4 into the following.
4a. It MUST define guidelines on Presentation Fragments in HTML,
XHTML, XML and WML so that features mentioned elsewhere in the document
such as action routing and adaptation can be performed.
4b. It MUST?SHOULD define guidelines on ECMAScript scripts so that
features such as action routing and adaptation are enabled.
4->4c Functionality offered elsewhere in this specification (e.g.,
action routing, customization) SHOULD NOT be restricted based on a
particular presentation format. However, this specification MAY only
provide constructive guidelines for other restricted set of presentation
formats
Also, we should think of this extracted response from Kurt Cagle's mail in
the context of 4c. I think its very relavant. In fact, this was also one of
the thoughts in IBM's WSXL position paper. We may want to use this line for
all binary formats. Imagine
if script writers follow this approach :-) then we are all set. We don't
have to grok through anything anymore.
On the other front, concerning plug-in technology, I'd recommend just
taking
a hint from HTML and create a standardized <object> or <embed> capability
that includes parameter passing, plug-in source code and viewport
specification sizes. Couple this with a mechanism to let these plug-ins
hook
into a native web service capability for conformity sake, and you don't
need
to worry about formal support of a given vendor's products - they would
instead write a wrapper AI to be conformant with the WSIA spec.
Ravi Konuru
eBusiness Tools and Frameworks, IBM Research
office: 914-784-7180, tieline 8-863-7180; fax -3804
Eilon Reshef
<eilon.reshef@webc To: "'Sean Fitts'" <sean@crossweave.com>, Ravi
ollage.com> Konuru/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
05/10/2002 01:44 Subject: RE: WSIA 5/9/2002: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
PM
Here's another round based on the latest comments, with a clearer
distinction between what we commit to do versus what we wish to do long
term (based on Ravi's observation). I also don't think we need to spell out
the different things that are supported, but I do see an slight conceptual
distinction between action routing and customization (see below).
This specification must support common Presentation formats, which are in
use today in Net-enabled applications. In particular:
1. It MUST support Presentation Fragments in HTML, XHTML, XML and WML.
2. It MUST support Presentation Fragments and Actions created by ECMAScript
scripts.
[ER]: Presentation Fragments are document.write() and DOM function calls.
Actions are navigation (non-presentation) function calls (such as
location.replace).
3. It MUST support embedded elements (e.g., Images, Flash, Applets, etc.)
(and Actions created by such elements?).
[ER]: Presentation Fragments are things displayed to the user, actions are
navigation commands. I do think that not allowing supporting actions in
such formats is limiting.
4. Functionality offered elsewhere in this specification (e.g., action
routing, customization) SHOULD NOT be restricted based on a particular
presentation format. However, this specification MAY only provide
constructive guidelines for a restricted set of presentation formats.