MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
I agree that the prevalence of JavaScript will require that we address it
even in the first release.
As to the meaning of "should not", RFC 2119 says:
SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full
implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before
implementing any behavior described with this label.
I take this to mean in this context that the committee will not eliminate
the possibility of carrying other formats (such as flash) without having
good reasons after careful considerations of the issues and implications.
In contrast, using "must not" is an absolute constraint ... I'm just
concerned that we not place that constraint on ourselves without
understanding the implications.
Eilon Reshef
<eilon.reshef@webc To: Ravi Konuru/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
ollage.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
05/08/2002 10:57
AM
Ravi,
I think that your observation that JavaScript is essentially "yet another
binary format" catches the bull by its horns - in a way, that sharpens the
question.
It more than makes sense - in my view - to ignore customization of binary
formats for the first release (at least by the Consumer, the Producer can
always hand-code anything).
However, to me, supporting action routing in JavaScript (even if not
transparently) is a must. (There are way too many apps that use JavaScript
for links and forms).
Eilon