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]
At 01:55 PM 5/8/2002 -0400, Eilon Reshef wrote:
I
am not suggesting that the Consumer is not allowed to change
JavaScript, rather the suggestion is that we wouldn't assume that
it should. To me, that's because correctly analyzing code constructs (in
any language) without executing them is anywhere from hard (from a
practical perspective) to impossible (from a theoretical perspective, as
Theory of Computation shows).
I don't see a connection between supporting modification of
JavaScript
(which I agree is an open issue) and the need to support complete,
path wise analysis of it. Leaving the halting problem aside for a
bit, it
would seem possible to extend the Adaptation Description Language
proposed by IBM to include JavaScript modifications along with XML
and CSS ones.
This is not to say that
WSIA can't define an interface that uses JavaScript (e.g., I assume the
committee may decide to define JavaScript functions, events, etc.), but I
guess that the question is can we require the Consumer to analyze
JavaScript code to support action routing, for
example?
Again, I don't see how leaving the second sentence out leads to
*requiring* the Consume to analyze or even modify JavaScript. Such
a
statement would seem to need a positive assertion that such modification
*is* a requirement (something which again, I view as open).
Customization is
definitely something that we will be discussing in the Customization
sub-committee. My working assumption is that the requirement below is
rather generic, and applies to anywhere from the scope of WSIA in
general, to action routing, unique tokens, etc., and that it might be
changed as the Customization sub-committee
proceeds.
I guess my take is that it is too generic. It seems to be trying
to
take a half step and would result in muddying things instead of
making
them clearer. If it really doesn't place any restrictions one way
or the
other on our work, then it doesn't seem like a requirement and I
would
argue it should not be included.
Sean
Eilon