At 04:51 PM 5/8/2002 -0400, Eilon Reshef wrote:
I think I see your point (I thought
of modification as semantic versus syntactic), how about the following
wording (which still puts the Customization issue
aside):
One small tweak, the modifications may be semantic, but the semantics are
largely implied and will likely need to be described externally (ala the
adaptation
description in WSXL).
I guess I don't see a lot of difference here between this type of
modification and
general markup modification. Both contain semantic information,
both require
some sort of locator to identify the sections implementing a given
semantic
operation, and in both cases, the semantics are opaque.
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 JavaScript as an
associated scripting language. Such support MUST include a way to support
Actions triggered by scripts. However, it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the
Consumer is aware of the semantics of scripting
elements.
Given the parallel between semantics of scripting elements and
semantics
of other elements (such as markup and/or actions), I still don't see the
need
for the second statement. However, in this form it seems a lot more
benign
(at least to my eye).
3. It SHOULD support embedded binary
presentation elements (e.g., Flash, Applets, etc.).
[Optional/Debate: Such support SHOULD provide a way to support Actions
triggered by such elements.]
However, it SHOULD NOT be assumed that the
Consumer modifies the binary elements in any way.
I personally think it makes sense to favor a single technical approach
that captures both (2) and (3), but I also don't see it as a high-level
requirement but rather as a technical preference.
Could you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I understand.
Thanks.
Sean
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Fitts
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 2:14 PM
To: Eilon Reshef; 'Rich Thompson';
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
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Fitts
[mailto:]
2. It MUST support JavaScript as an associated scripting language and
MUST provide a way to support actions triggered by scripts.
[Optional/Debate: However, it MUST NOT be assumed that scripting elements
are modified by the Consumer in any way.]
Why do you feel that the second "MUST NOT"
statement is necessary?
To me it seems overly restrictive since it impacts both what types of
customization we will support and where the customization will occur.
My understanding is that both of these issues are still up for debate/
description in the customization sub-group.
