Next in thread → Next in month →

RE: [wsrp-interop] draft change request

From
Andre Kramer <>
Date
2003-11-19T16:45:29+00:00
ID
Thread
RE: [wsrp-interop] draft change request
Definitely stronger than I would prefer and an errata candidate, 
as the "" replacement value would then have a new special 
meaning.

 

Is "" 
then ever a valid value for wsrp-mode & wsrp-windowState or does "where the 
Producer has no value" imply that the current mode & windowState MUST now be 
sent back?

 

Unfortunately, I will not be able to call in at the start of the meeting 
tomorrow, so would just like to briefly re-iterate my opinion on this from last 
week. Such a restriction is likely to (needlessly) cause interoperability 
problems (due to producers that omit to replace some token) and consumers will 
still need to protect themselves (from such producers).

 

If we 
accepted this change request, I would filter written URLs at the 
producer so that any remaining "{wsrp-*}" gets replaced with "". If we 
also require the current mode and window state to be written into the URL 
then that would be even more conformance tax IMHO. I would prefer only to have 
MUSTs for the tokens that are actually needed to be replaced to achieve 
consumer/producer interoperability.

 

regards,

Andre

  
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson 
  [mailto:]
Sent: 19 November 2003 
  14:44
To: 
Subject: 
  [wsrp-interop] draft change request

Here is a draft for the change request I was asked to draft. I know 
  this is stronger than some would prefer, but hopefully it gives us a good 
  strawman for the discussion.Document: Spec

Section: 10.2.2 (Producer URL Writing)
Requested by: Interop 
  SC

Old text: These tokens are enclosed in curly braces (i.e. "{" and 
  "}") and contain the name of the portlet URL parameter that should be 
  replaced.

New text: These tokens are enclosed in curly braces (i.e. "{" 
  and "}") and contain the name of the portlet URL parameter which the Producer 
  MUST replace (using "" for those parameters where the Producer has no 
  value).

Errata? 

Reasoning: The current ambiguity will make for 
  a lot of additional Consumer logic to protect itself.
Next in thread → Next in month →