Additional good questions that add to my reservation of adding this to MarkupParams.
I think I would rather us begin to define well-known extensions for consumers/producers
to take advantage of if/when necessary. Otherwise I worry the parameter
list will continue to grow over time as we find new use cases for additional
information. [By the way, this was also at the root of my questions/concerns
about adding CC/PP]
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
Interesting point, but one could easily
argue this is an issue with what the framework makes available to the component
rather than a general issue (i.e. that decision could be easily changed).
Thinking about this further led to the
following questions:
Isn't this an html specific
issue (i.e. doctype in addition to mimetype)? If so, that reduces its fundamental
value to me.
Wasn't the introduction
of several doctypes part of a recognition on the part of the html standardization
group that a significant body of legacy web sites existed? Should this be
carried forward into the WSRP-enabled portlet world, particularly in light
of this quote from our Primer; "WSRP raises the bar
of conformance for this standard in many respects for what constitutes a
good or effective portlet implementation. The specification makes specific
recommendations regarding markup fragment rules, representing state, ensuring
security, etc., with an eye toward maximizing the usefulness and integrity
of portlet services."? If WSRP is
truly raising the bar, it seems advocating adherence to the strict doctype
should be part of that.
Are there any problems
if a portlet generates a fragment of "strict" html which gets included on
a page with the transitional html doctype?
Rich
Michael Freedman <>
03/17/05 06:13 PM
To
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp]
[CR310] - Add doctype fields
I think the answer to whether the "consumer" knows the doctype
is a qualified "no". Take for example someone who wants to build portlet
support into a generic application development platform. The platform would
expose a developer friendly API for using/manipulating consumer-side use
of portlets and hide the gory details of communicating with [remotw wsrp]
portlets. In such an environment there is a clean and distinct separation
between application code that describes the structural rendering of the a
consumer response and any given component in that structure that provides
a portion of the rendition. Because doctype is likely just markup expressed
in the page, such components may find it difficult if not impossible to determine
what it is. I.e. whereas you can get the locale, mimetype and characters
set from a servlet response you can't get the doctype.
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
This change request raises a couple of questions for me:
1. Will the Consumer always "know" the doctype for what will be returned
to the user agent at the time it invokes getMarkup? I think the answer is
"yes", but we should review this carefully.
2. Are there other characteristics of the aggregated page that the Portlet
could make good use of? Currently we have locale, mime type and character
set ... any others?
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <>
02/02/2005 11:19 AM
To
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp]
[CR310] - Add doctype fields
For the reasoning, I meant to say
"Due to the legacy nature of web, some portal sites are designed to
generate either _strict_ or quirks mode HTML ..."
I missed "strict" in my request sent to Rich.
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Document: Specification
> Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
> Section: 6.1.9 MarkupParams Type
> Page: 31
> Old Text:
> New Text:
>
> [O] string doctype
>
> - doctype: The value of the PUBLIC ID of the DOCTYPE declaration,
if
> any, used by the Consumer. Consumers using legacy or strict style HTML
> may supply the DOCTYPE. Producers MAY honor such DOCTYPE while
> generating markup.
>
> Document: WSRP1.0
> Section: 5.1.10 MarkupType Type
> Page: 20
> Old Text:
> New Text:
>
> [O] string doctypes[]
>
> - doctypes: An array of DOCTYPE declarations that the Portlet can
> support.
>
> Reasoning:
>
> Due to the legacy nature of web, some portal sites are designed to
> generate either or quirks mode HTML markup and expect browsers to
> interpret the markup accordingly. Browsers use the HTML DOCTYPE
> declaration to indicate browsers which mode to use. For example, the
> following DOCTYPE declaration can be used for strict interpretation:
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
>
> During an earlier discussion, the following issues have been identified:
>
> a. Consumers do not know whether a portlet can generate markup in a
> given DOCTYPE.
> b. Portlets do not know what kind of DOCTYPE to expect.
>
> The above changes address these issues. Please note that, in order to
> preserve backwards compat, both these elements are optional, and the
> behavior is unspecified when the doctypes are not supplied by either
side.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgroup.php.
