OASIS Web Services Interactive Applications TC

RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]

  • 1.  RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]

    Posted 05-08-2002 11:23
     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 would completely agree that we should avoid customization of
    *binary* formats for the first release.  However, I agree with Elion
    that even if we might like to (and personally I don't), we cannot
    treat JavaScript as a binary for this purpose. 

    Beyond the fact that it *isn't* binary, as Elion points out it is just
    used way too much.  In fact, the use of JavaScript to dynamically
    generate not just validation logic, but entire UI's is increasing in
    usage (just take a look at the recent product releases from both
    Siebel and PeopleSoft). 

    IMO, if the WSIA is going to be at all relevant, we have to acknowledge
    and allow for the current best practices.  If to become WSIA compliant,
    companies must completely re-write their existing applications, then
    WSIA adoption will be seriously impeded.

    To me this means that we must allow for customization of JavaScript
    and not just for action routing purposes.

    Sean

    At 10:57 AM 5/8/2002 -0400, Eilon Reshef wrote:
    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