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]
Ravi, thanks. Your description of providing "support" for a format vs.
just passing it along (and making sure not to muck it up) is exactly
what was lurking in the back of my mind.
I guess the thing that confused me was that we explicitly called out
Action routing, but failed to mention all the other aspects of providing
"support" for a given element. I wasn't sure if this was intentional or
just because the other aspects are handled by other requirements.
For instance, if the WSIA supported Action routing from scripts, but
did not support adaptation of generated markup, would it meet this
requirement? I don't think it should, but I'm not entirely sure that this
is true as currently worded.
So, 2 questions - do others agree that we need to provide "complete
support" (as outlined by Ravi below) for scripts? If not, why not?
Any thoughts on the current wording and whether it captures this intent?
Sean
At 09:04 AM 5/10/2002 -0400, Ravi Konuru wrote:
> > Do we want to say anything about additional Presentation Fragments
>generated
> > by scripts?
>
>We MUST support them and I am assuming that by support, we mean action
>routing, interpretation, and adaptation. As you pointed there is so much
>use of it that we cannot ignore. However, in general wrt javascript do we
>explicitly mention that there may be guidelines on javascript coding so
>that we can do routing?
>
>After reading through your version of reqmt 3. It seems we need to
>distinguish between delivering a format opaquely/pass-through vs what I
>defined above as support. Should we use the words "Carry or Opaquely
>transport" and "Support" to distinguish the two or am I missing something?
>
>regards,
>Ravi Konuru
>eBusiness Tools and Frameworks, IBM Research
>office: 914-784-7180, tieline 8-863-7180; fax -3804
>
>
>
>
> Sean
> Fitts
>
> <sean@crossweave. To: Eilon Reshef
> <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com>, "'Monica Martin'"
> com> <mmartin@certivo.net>,
> wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc:
>
> 05/10/2002 03:05 Subject: RE: WSIA
> 5/9/2002: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
> AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>At 10:11 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Eilon Reshef wrote:
> If I remember correctly, Sean did not feel comfortable with the last
> sentence of statement 2 and the word "binary".
>
> So, where we stand might be the following, with the exception that we
> still need to solicit input on the second part of statement 3.
>
> Sean - I did no go back to the somewhat long discussion yesterday, so
> please do (continue to ;-) correct me if I missed something...
>
>No problem, sorry for rambling on, it's really not like me :-).
>
>
> 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.
>
>Do we want to include cHTML or is that dead at this point?
>
>
> 2. It MUST support ECMAScript as an associated scripting language,
> and MUST include a way to correctly route Actions triggered by
> scripts.
>
>Do we want to say anything about additional Presentation Fragments
>generated
>by scripts?
>
>
> 3. It SHOULD support other embedded elements (e.g., Flash, Applets,
> etc.), and SHOULD provide a way to correctly route Actions triggered
> by such elements.
>
>Personally, I would prefer to leave action routing from such elements for a
>later
>version of the specification. I haven't seen any comments from others on
>this
>(though they may have been lost in the recent exchange :-).
>
>My proposal would be:
>
>3. It MUST support other embedded elements (e.g., Flash, Applets, etc.),
>but
>need not provide a way to correctly route Actions triggered by such
>elements.
>
>Sean
>
>
>