[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
Wonderful. I'll draft a final version of 2.13.x tonight or tomorrow morning. Domo arigato, Fukui-san! Cheers, /john patton/ -- ca Senior Software Engineer Office: 630 505-6150 Cell: 847-224-9196 john.patton@ca.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Keisuke Fukui [mailto:kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 7:03 PM > To: Christine Draper > Cc: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > Christine, > > Excellent. Either one works for me, but latter sounds nicer to me. > I'm fine to add this as a new requirement, while if it is > agreed on, this maybe combined either with 2.13.2 or with > 2.13.3, I think. > > -Keisuke > > Christine Draper wrote: > > Would it be possible to reword to: > > > > The SDD specification must support defining constraints on the > > available localized content, based on the locale of the > host environment. > > > > or > > > > The SDD specification must support defining constraints on the > > localized content that may be installed, based on the > locale of the host environment. > > > > > > Regards, > > Christine > > > > Senior Technical Staff Member > > IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10 Austin, TX 78758 > > 1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482 > > Inactive hide details for "Danielson, Debra J" > > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>"Danielson, Debra J" > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com> > > > > > > *"Danielson, Debra J" > > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>* > > > > 03/08/2006 05:06 PM > > > > > > > > To > > > > Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > cc > > > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > > > > > > > The point here is to allow the author to prevent a > combination which > > will not work. > > > > Regards, > > Debra > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > *From:* Christine Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com] * > > Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:42 PM* > > To:* sdd@lists.oasis-open.org* > > Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > Debra, > > > > By wider context, I meant aggregation but also local policy > and context. > > It would seem that a client would want the same default for all > > packages installed on a machine - and would not want each vendor to > > choose differently. If I put together an offering that integrates a > > database and a web server, I wouldn't want one to default > to English > > and the other to German because that's what the underlying > components > > decide - and ideally I'd want to avoid requiring the aggregator to > > trawl through all aggregated packages "overriding" their > defaults. If > > the client is actually based in Japan but have to install their > > servers in English because that's all they support, I want > the user to > > be able to say "please install in Japanese", not have some vendor > > specify "always install English on English servers". > > > > Further, if there are actually different user sets on the same > > machine, or accessing the application remotely - then the > best choice > > may vary by application, and will be dependent on the user > sets, not > > on the application (e.g. a company employs Polish administrators, > > Scottish help desk staff, and German engineers.... they all use > > applications on one server). > > > > Do you have examples of why a vendor needs to specify acceptable > > locale substitutions, rather than leaving that decision as > external? > > If we're talking about which localization content to > install (rather > > than the text to localize messages during the install), I > can imagine > > a scenario where certain localization content won't work on > servers in > > a different locale. If this is the concern, the SDD would > need to be > > able to say "do not install localization content Y on a server with > > locale X". We might word the requirement as being able to express > > constraints on the locale of resources in the environment...?? > > > > Regards, > > Christine > > > > > > > > Senior Technical Staff Member > > IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10 Austin, TX 78758 > > 1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482 > > Inactive hide details for "Danielson, Debra J" > > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>"Danielson, Debra J" > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com> > > > > > *"Danielson, Debra J" > > > > <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>* > > > > 03/08/2006 02:00 PM > > > > > > To > > > > Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org> cc > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Christine, > > > > This type of constraint needs to be included in the > descriptor for a > > specific component, so that the constraints can be accurately be > > maintained during composition. This I presume is your > "wider context", > > and I contend that the information about the acceptability of a > > substitution for a specific locale may not be available to the > > integrator if it is not part of the descriptor for the part. > > > > Regards, > > Debra > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > *From:* Christine Draper [_mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com_] * > > Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 2:36 PM* > > To:* sdd@lists.oasis-open.org* > > Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > John, > > > > Please do make sure this is a separate requirement, so we > can consider > > it separately. I am not comfortable with requiring the SDD > to support > > defining how to decide the locale to use for a given package. My > > concern is similar to the concern I have with defining > priorities for > > choices of alternative topologies or configurations - that this is > > typically a decision that needs to be made in a wider > context, not a > > good thing for the author of a specific SDD to impose. > > > > Regards, > > Christine > > > > Senior Technical Staff Member > > IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10 Austin, TX 78758 > > 1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482 > > Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" > > <John.Patton@ca.com>"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com> > > > > > *"Patton, > > > John > > > H" > > > > > <John.Patton@ca.com>* > > > > > > > 03/08/2006 > > > 01:07 > > > > > PM > > > > > > To > > > > "Danielson, Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com> cc > > > > <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Subject > > > > RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been working within CA a bit on 2.13.x and we have an > additional > > requirement we want to make sure is covered: > > > > 2.13.x The SDD specification must support defining localization > > constraints based on the host environment and available > localized text. > > > > The intent is to make sure the SDD can define constraints on how > > localized content should be displayed when there is no localized > > content for the host environment's locale. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Also, I expect someone's going to need to compile all the 2.13.x > > requirement recommendations that have been discussed in > this thread, > > so I'll do that before today's meeting. > > > > cheers, > > > > /john patton/* > > > > --** > > c**a* > > Senior Software Engineer > > Office: 630 505-6150 > > Cell: 847-224-9196_ > > __john.patton@ca.com_ <mailto:john.patton@ca.com> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > * > > From:* Julia McCarthy [_mailto:julia@us.ibm.com_] * > > Sent:* Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:52 AM* > > To:* Patton, John H* > > Cc:* Christine Draper; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org* > > Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > I vote for 2.13 as proposed. > > > > The SDD specification must support defining localization > content for > > multiple locales. > > > > For 2.13.1 I suggest a modificatoin: 2.13.1 The SDD > specification must > > support localized text within the SDD descriptor. > > I'm not sure it is ok to refer to the SDD descriptor in a > requirement, > > but we do need to say something to distinguish this localized text > > from localized text in the solution content. > > > > Julia McCarthy > > Autonomic Computing Enablement > > julia@us.ibm.com > > Tie/Line 349/8156 > > 877-261-0391 > > > > > > Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" > > <John.Patton@ca.com>"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com> > > > > > > > *"Patton, > > > > > John > > > > > H" > > > > > > <John.Patton@ca.com>* > > > > > > > > > 03/08/2006 > > > > > 10:09 > > > > > > AM > > > > > > To > > > > Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org> cc > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > inline... > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > > > > * > > From:* Christine Draper [_mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com_] * > > Sent:* Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:18 PM* > > To:* sdd@lists.oasis-open.org* > > Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > Another late entry... > > > > I may be oversimplifying here, but for both of these, do we really > > need to say more than: > > > > The SDD specification must support defining localization > content for > > multiple locales. > > [Patton, John H] I vote for this one as 2.13. :-) > > > > It should be a requirement on runtimes that they support installing > > different locales than the default machine locale, or to choose a > > suitable default if there is no localization content for the chosen > > locale (according to policy, or user query, or best practice, or... > > [Patton, John H] I totally agree. That's been my hang-up > with 2.13.2. > > > > The other interpretation - which would make them follow-on > > requirements to 2.13.1 - is that they relate to the text in the > > descriptor itself which is localized. I'd then suggest > 2.13.1 covers > > this, and what's left is again a runtime (install GUI) requirment. > > [Patton, John H] Ooooh, I like that. Maybe: > > 2.13.1 The SDD specification must support containing localized text. > > > > Cheers, > > > > /john patton/ > > > > Regards, > > Christine > > > > Senior Technical Staff Member > > IBM, 11501 Burnet Road, Mail Point 901-6B10 Austin, TX 78758 > > 1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482 > > Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" > > <John.Patton@ca.com>"Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com> > > > > > > > > > > *"Patton, > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > H" > > > > > > > > > > <John.Patton@ca.com>* > > > > > > > > > > > > 03/07/2006 > > > > > > > > 02:08 > > > > > > > > > > PM > > > > > > To > > > > "Keisuke Fukui" <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com> cc > > > > "Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>, > <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Subject > > > > RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2 > > > > > > > > > > > > Inline... > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Keisuke Fukui [_mailto:kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com_] > > > Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:54 PM > To: Patton, > John H > Cc: > > Robert Dickau; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: > [sdd] 2.13.3 > > AND 2.13.2 > > Hi there, > > Opinion from a late comer: > > > > [John Patton] Howdy, late comer. :-) > > > > > > > The rewrite for 2.13.3 from people sounds fine to me. > > > The 2.13.2 seems to contain a different requirement: > > > > > > 2.13.2 The SDD specification must support the definition > of > the > > information in order to not preclude the Install Operator > from > > viewing the localized content in a different locale from > > the target > > platform, or from installing InstallableUnits that > are tied to a > > different locale. > > > > > > I agree that the first half phrasing sounds redundant with > > > 2.13.3 (as Rob suggested) and propose to prune it to read: > > > > > > 2.13.2 The SDD specification must not preclude the Install > > > Operator from viewing or installing the localized content in > a > > different locale from the target platform or in a different > > locale > > from tied one. > > > > > > [John Patton] I'm personally not a fan of requirements saying what > > things must not do. If we start listing what the SDD specification > > should not do, we will never finish it since that list can > literally > > be endless. And any way I rewrite this seems to relate directly to > > runtime or tooling. I personally think this should be in > the "best practices" > > section, but I'm willing to defer on this since it will end > up having > > no direct bearing on the SDD specification itself. > > > > Cheers, > > > > /john patton/ > > > > > > > Yes, it's still up to the runtime or tooling that fulfill the > > > requirement, but the specification shouldn't preclude the > use > case, > > either. FYI, as an example of the listed use case 19, I > > sometimes > > need to view/install English contents even if both > the > Japanese are > > available in contents and the target system > supports it. > > > > > > - Keisuke > > > > > > > > > Patton, John H wrote: > > > > Actually, the more I look at this, the more I'm > thinking > that > > 2.13.2 > > is not necessary. That should be handled during > runtime or > > by the > > tooling. Does anyone else agree with me on that? > > > > > > > > 2.13.3 (modified rewrite with Rob's suggestions) The SDD > > > specification > > must support defining a default or > fallback locale > > to be used in > > hosting environments where localized content is > > unavailable > or has not > > been defined for the hosting > > environment's locale. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > /john patton/ > > > > > > > > *-- > > > > **c**a > > > > *Senior Software Engineer > > > > Office: 630 505-6150 > > > > Cell: 847-224-9196 > > > > john.patton@ca.com <_mailto:john.patton@ca.com_> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------- > > > > *From:* Robert Dickau [_mailto:rdickau@macrovision.com_] > > > > *Sent:* Friday, March 03, 2006 1:27 PM > > *To:* > Patton, John H; > > sdd@lists.oasis-open.org > > *Subject:* RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 > > > > > > This rewording is much clearer. I now read the > > requirement to mean > > > > that one (the install operator?) can specify "fall back > > to > > Esperanto content when the hosting environment's locale isn't > > > > specifically included". > > > > > > > > Predictably, I'd prefer "must support definition of a > default > > > > locale" to "support defining a default locale"; and > would a > > phrase > > like "fallback locale" be more appropriate than > "default > > locale" > > > > to emphasize the intent of the requirement? > > > > > > > > (Looking at it, though, it doesn't seem much different > from the > > > > previous req 2.13.2, which states the install operator > should be > > > > able to view content in other than the target's > locale.) > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ---------- > > > > *From:* Patton, John H [_mailto:John.Patton@ca.com_] > > > *Sent:* > > Friday, 03 March 2006 11:33 am > > *To:* > sdd@lists.oasis-open.org > > > > *Subject:* [sdd] 2.13.3 > > > > I believe this meets > the spirit of > > the original. > > > > > > > > Suggestion: > > > > 2.13.3 > > > > The SDD specification must support defining a default > > locale > > to be > > used in hosting environments where localized > content is > > > unavailable > > or has not been defined for the hosting > environment's > > locale. > > > > > > > > Original: > > > > 2.13.3 The SDD specification must support the ability > > for the > > author > > to define the localized content which should > run properly > > on all > > locale-specific versions of supported operating systems. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > /john patton/ > > > > > > > > *-- > > > > **c**a > > > > *Senior Software Engineer > > > > Office: 630 505-6150 > > > > Cell: 847-224-9196 > > > > john.patton@ca.com <_mailto:john.patton@ca.com_> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]