Next in thread →
Next in month →
RE: [wsrp] wsrp-markup meeting notes, charter, preliminary f2f agenda items
One could include almost anything in the discussion, but I think it is valuable to set up scopes that allow useful work to move forward rapidly. The WSRP TC explicitly scoped the overall discussion to communication between the Consumer and Producer. Various areas do go beyond that scope (e.g. the implications of the wsrp-secureURL portlet URL parameter on End-User to Consumer communications), but only for well-defined reasons. I guess I just don't see such a reason in this case. Rich Thompson Andre Kramer <> 04/17/2003 07:34 AM To: cc: Subject: RE: [wsrp] wsrp-markup meeting notes, charter, preliminary f2f ag enda items 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
Next in thread →
Next in month →