Title: Message
We still haven't reached a complete agreement with regards to Requirement
602. This horse has been beaten to death and I have a feel that the latest
version of the requirement reflects it (i.e., feels like a dead horse
:-).
In general, I think that there are issues that regard to the intent of
this requirement, rather to the wording:
How do we want to handle JavaScript?
How do we want to handle other embedded presentation formats (Flash,
etc.)?
Although pretty late in the game, this may still be a relevant topic for
further discussion with the entire team.
My particular viewpoint is that we should do every effort to ensure that
every piece of functionality that we provide supports both JavaScript, markup
generated by JavaScript and binary formats. However, there is currently no
consensus on this, especially since this result in implications that are
debatable: for example, this requirement leads to favor distributed action
routing (where the Consumer passes a URL skeleton and the Producer plugs in an
action into it) than Consumer-driven action routing, since the former can also
apply to JavaScript and Flash (albeit with work on behalf of the Producer) and
the latter can't (or: makes it extremely difficult).
I would suggest to bring it to further discussion.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:18
PM
To:
Subject:
[wsia][wsia-requirements] Revised document
Since we had agreed to get the requirements all revised by
this Fridays
telecon, I spent some time pulling (what
I saw as) the conclusion of the
discussions on the
email list into the requirements document Charlie had
sent out a couple of weeks ago. Everyone should review my collection
of
changes for accuracy. Also, there are still quite a
few requirements
needing to be worked through.
(See attached file: WSIA reqs 2002-05-15.doc)
