On
ASP/JSP, we could have special (tag) libraries to make authoring HTML fragments
easier. We may not standardize such support but I see no problem
included such technologies in the sub group discussion.
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:]
Sent: 17 April 2003 12:24
To:
Subject: Re: [wsrp] wsrp-markup meeting
notes, charter, preliminary f2f agenda items
I think it is valuable to gather a list of the various
presentation languages available today. This list should then be prioritized
based on current and expected near-term usage. Perhaps generating the list
(with some usage statistics) should be the focus until the F2F and the
prioritization be placed on the F2F agenda.
I disagree that ASP and JSP belong on the list. They
are technologies for generating markup rather than markup languages that are
transmitted. I'm sure the Coordination subgroup will consider the
ramifications of popular technologies when it discusses/designs the "eventing"
model. If there are specific issues, they should be contained to that
discussion rather than spread across several subgroups.
Rich Thompson
Rex Brooks
<>
04/16/2003 03:34 PM
To:
cc:
Subject: [wsrp] Fwd: [wsrp-markup] Re:
[wsrp-wsia] wsrp-markup meeting notes, charter, preliminary f2f agenda
items
I forgot to
copy this to the list when I replied.
Ciao,
Rex
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003
12:09:56 -0700
To: "Thomas Schaeck" <>
From: Rex
Brooks <>
Subject: [wsrp-markup] Re: [wsrp-wsia]
wsrp-markup meeting notes, charter, preliminary f2f agenda
items
Cc:
Bcc:
X-Attachments:
Hi
Thomas,
I expect the list to grow, but how much
remains to be seen. I thought it would be better to start with specifics. SMIL
is Simultaneous Mutlimedia Integration Language
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-smil/
http://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/
SVG is
Scalable Vector Graphics
http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/
VRML isthe ISO 3D
standard and is being updated to X3D, a modularized, xml-based version. I
believe it is ready for ISO now
http://web3d.org/
The particulars of how
each of these presentation languages are somewhat distinct is beyond the scope
of a quick discussion, but they are all scriptable, which makes them
candidates for use with interactive portals customized to individual
preferences. Markup Fragments and the rules that pertain to them are also a
bit beyond a quick discussion.
ASPs, JSPs, etc
require consideration because they are scripts and the whole issue of eventing
is still ahead. Certainly not for 1.1, but certainly for 2.0.
I agree on the sentence change. I suspect that is just
the tip of the iceberg here.
I also agree on
taking a poll on what markup languages are needed for 1.1. Most of what I have
included in the charter is really aimed at 2.0.
I
also agree that WAP Fragment Rules and Markup Fragment Rules in general are
important for 1.1.
Ciao,
Rex
Hi Rex,
thanks for sending
the draft of the charter !
I have some questions / remarks:
It
is very good that you listed the concrete sections of the spec that
you
expect to be affected. Is this list comprehensive or do you expect it
to
grow ?
What are SMIL and SVG ? Which devices / browsers support
them as a markup
languages for presentation ?
I think VRML is for 3D
graphics ? If yes, I am not sure how it would be
practical to define markup
fragments for this. I would rather have expected
that you might have
something like an HTML markup fragment with a link to a
VRML document being
produced by the WSRP service and then when displayed in
the end user's
browser and the user clicks on the link, the browser would
load the VRML
plugin to display the VRML file. In that case I would expect
that no WSRP
markup fragment definition for VRML would be required, WSRP
would just be
agnostic of what documents are linked to from the
markup
fragments.
I am not sure why ASPs, JSPs and PHP are listed -
since they are mechanisms
to generate markup on the server side, I'd assume
the WSRP standard should
remain agnostic of these specific ways to
implement WSRP services.
You might want to change the sentence "*
Section 10 Markup: Markup Fragment
Rules for various implementations" to "*
Section 10 Markup: Markup Fragment
Rules for various markup
languages"
Maybe we could initiate a vote on the web site to have the
TC express what
markup languages they are most interested in for the 1.1
time frame and
what people think could be done in the 2.0 timeframe.
Richard, is it
possible to set up a vote like that somehow
?
Personally, I think an important thing we should look at for WSRP 1.1
are
markup fragment definitons for WAP phones (i.e. WML / XHTML basic
for
phones) and Voice phones (i.e. VoiceXML).
Best
regards,
Thomas
|---------+---------------------------->
|
| Rex Brooks
|
| |
<rexb@starbourne.|
| |
com>
|
| |
|
|
| 04/16/2003 07:30 |
|
| PM
|
| |
|
|---------+---------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To:
, ,
,
|
|
|
|
cc:
|
| Subject:
[wsrp-wsia] wsrp-markup meeting notes, charter, preliminary f2f agenda
items
|
|
|
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Hi
Everyone,
Please excuse the multiple postings, but I wanted to make
sure that anyone
interested in the wsrp-markup subcommittee sees this
post.
We did have a telecon meeting today, even though there were only
three
participants on the call. Since there was not adequate advance
notice, I
won't treat it as a regularly scheduled meeting. So I won't post
minutes,
nor record attendance this time. However we did decide that due to
schedule
a regular meeting week after next, Wednesday, April 30, 2003
at
8 am PST / 11 am EST / 5 pm CET, 1 hour
US dial in #:
1.888.481.3032
International Dial in #: 1.617.801.9600
Participant
Passcode: 28614774 (you will be asked for your name)
UK 0800 904 7961
D
0800 1813856
I have also added it to the sc calendar, so the call-in
information can be
found there as well.
The agenda for that meeting
is:
Finalize and Vote on Charter.
Finalize recommendations for Face
to Face Agenda Items from this
subcommittee.
Here is the charter as
it exists so far:
Charter
The purpose of the WSRP Markup
Subcommittee is to
1. Identify and recommend best practices for WSRP
Specification 1.0 for
* Section 4.2 Markup Operations: MarkupResponse,
MarkupParams;
* Section 5.1.10 MarkupType Types;
* Section 6 Markup Interface: MarkupParams Type, MarkupContext
Type,
MarkupResponse Type;
* Section 6.2
getMarkup() Operation: caching of markup fragments,
Cachability, Cache
Invalidation; and
* Section 10 Markup: Markup
Fragment Rules for various
implementations
2. Identify markup
specifications and proprietary formats for consideration
in moving forward
from for WSRP Specification 1.0, including but not
restricted to
* XHTML (HTML, XHTML Basic, CSS)
*
VoiceXML,
* WAP,
* SMIL,
* SVG,
*
Application-specific MIME Types such as Flash,
*
standard MIME Types for special interests, such VRML and
* emerging specifications of interest, such as i- mode,
* scripting
languages and the namespacing of such languages/practices as
Javascript,
ASP. JSP, PHP, CSS
3. Develop Recommendations for Defining Templates
for all such Markup
Types, MIME Types, Markup Fragments, amd Best Practices
for such
4. Identify and recommend liaisons with other standards
organizations and
working groups to coordinate efforts, harmonize
specifications, and ensure
as much as possible the ease of interoperability
of these standards and
practices.
Name
The name of this
subcommittee shall be the OASIS WSRP Markup
Subcommittee.
Mailing-List
Deliverables
The deliverables of
this subcommittee will be:
Publish Reports fulfilling the numbered items of
our listed purposes.
Preliminary agenda items for f2f:
* Section
6.2 getMarkup() Operation: caching of markup fragments,
Cachability, and
Cache Invalidation;
* Section 10 Markup: Markup Fragment Rules for
various implementations
* templates and scripting considerations,
including the addition of
specification information such as javascript in
headers, including issues
of "look and feel" for standard common features
such as buttons, and
including user interface description language
options.
It should be noted that we have only identified specific areas
from the
existing charter that pertain to issues we
think should be discussed in
regard to whether we need to address them
immediately in a 1.1 version
and/or need to be addressed in the next
version whether it be 1.x or 2.0.
This is an admittedly superficial
gloss of issues that need to be fleshed
out in our
next meeting.
Ciao,
Rex
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress:
1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address:
http://www.starbourne.com
Email:
Tel:
510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
>
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison, Berkeley, CA, 94702
USA, Earth
W3Address: http://www.starbourne.com
Email:
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
--
Rex Brooks
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison,
Berkeley, CA, 94702 USA, Earth
W3Address:
http://www.starbourne.com
Email:
Tel: 510-849-2309
Fax: By Request
