Title: Message
Composing the above discussion, how about the summary below (I tried to
incorporate the debates below):
This
specification must support
common Presentation Formats, which are in use today in Net-enabled
applications. In particular:
1.
It MUST support HTML and XHTML as Presentation Formats.
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.]
3.
It MUST NOT preclude the use
of embedded binary presentation formats (e.g.,
Flash, GIFs, etc.).
[Optional/Debate: and MUST provide a way to
support actions triggered by such elements].
However, it MUST
NOT be assumed that binary presentation in is modified by the Consumer
in any way.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich
Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002
11:33 AM
To:
Subject: RE:
[wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
I agree that the prevalence of JavaScript will require that we
address it
even in the first release.
As to the meaning of "should not", RFC 2119 says:
SHOULD NOT This phrase, or the
phrase "NOT RECOMMENDED" mean that
there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the
particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the
full
implications should be understood
and the case carefully weighed before
implementing any behavior described with this label.
I take this to mean in this context that the committee will
not eliminate
the possibility of carrying other
formats (such as flash) without having
good reasons
after careful considerations of the issues and implications.
In contrast, using "must not" is an absolute constraint ... I'm
just
concerned that we not place that constraint on
ourselves without
understanding the
implications.
Eilon
Reshef
<eilon.reshef@webc
To: Ravi Konuru/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
ollage.com>
cc:
Subject: RE:
[wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
05/08/2002
10:57
AM
Ravi,
I think that your observation that JavaScript is essentially
"yet another
binary format" catches the bull by its
horns - in a way, that sharpens the
question.
It more than makes sense - in my view - to ignore
customization of binary
formats for the first release
(at least by the Consumer, the Producer can
always
hand-code anything).
However, to me, supporting action routing in JavaScript (even
if not
transparently) is a must. (There are way too
many apps that use JavaScript
for links and
forms).
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Ravi Konuru [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002
9:59 AM
To:
Subject: RE:
[wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
Questions/comments:
- Is
Java script being considered non- binary in these
discussions?
From my perspective, it is
binary.
- Does "Should not" mean that we will "try" not to introduce
in our
specification assumptions about output
of a service? This is not
verifiable. I rather say we will
initially focus on XML formats but
will
tackle binary formats in the next rev?
However, don't like this
option. see
next.
-
Should we define a set of guidelines for downloaded binary
code to
allow at least for routing if not for
customization? I prefer this.
Given
the prevalence of downloaded code
(script and flash). We should say
what
works and what doesn't.
regards,
Ravi Konuru
Rich
Thompson/Watson/I To:
BM@IBMUS
cc:
Subject: RE:
[wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
05/06/2002 08:39
AM
While I do think we need to
think about how a Consumer can provide
enough
information that a Producer could embed
action invocations and the
like in
binary formats, I think the last
sentence needs to be a SHOULD NOT
rather
than a MUST NOT as it may not turn out
to be feasible once we
consider this
for a
multi-tiered chain of Producers and Consumer.
Eilon Reshef
<eilon.reshef@webc
To: "'Alan
Kropp'"
<>,
ollage.com>
cc:
05/06/2002 01:06
Subject: RE:
[wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
AM
I'll put my 1.5 cents into this
discussion, even though I didn't
originally
put my name for it :-)
I think that it more than makes
sense that we shouldn't ask the
Consumer to
parse and modify Flash content, Java
applets, or any other binary
format.
The question in my mind
(regarding the actual intent of this
requirement)
is: should the WSIA protocol *permit*
some sequence of calls in which
a
WSIA Web Service that contains
Flash/Java/ActiveX with links or forms
would
still work, even though it has user
interaction, and even though
"smart
look-and-feel customization" (whatever
this is) will not be offered.
This point - although seemingly
minor - may have significant
implications
on the actual protocol with regards to
action routing.
If we do decide that binary
formats should be supported even at a
basic
level, then (at least according to my
possibly limited understanding)
this
means that we must provide at least some
way (not necessarily the
"mainstream" way) for the Consumer to
provide enough information to
the
Producer (who serves the binary data) so
that the binary content is
served
in such a way in which all the actions
are routed correctly to the
Consumer. This means that the Producer
has to take care of it, but it
would
make it doable.
We at WebCollage have
encountered some cases where people used Flash
for
parts of their applications, so it made
sense for us to consider it.
However, we need to decide whether this
is something that the WSIA
committee as a whole cares about.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kropp [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:41 PM
To:
''
Subject: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
R602
[Flexibility]
This specification should support common
Presentation
Formats, which are in use today in Net-enabled applications. In
particular,
it
should support HTML, XHTML, WML and XML as Presentation
Formats.
It
must
not
preclude the use of other presentation formats (Eilon: such
as
Flash,
GIFs, etc.). Debate on last sentence: AK, CW.
I
think only XML and HTML (due to its ubiquity) markups should
be
supported
by
name, other formats should be considered opaque in the
markup
stream.
Last
sentence should read:
It must not preclude the use of other presentation formats,
although
these
(e.g., Flash, GIFs, etc.) shall be considered opaque in the
markup
stream.
----------------------------------------------------------------
To
subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe
from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe
from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the
subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
