Re: [sdd] 2.13.3

[Julia McCarthy <julia@us.ibm.com>]

What use cases would you associate with proposals b), c) and d)? I don't believe the current use cases for 2.13.3 (20 and 209) are covered by any of those proposals. Note that 2.4.8 is pretty much the same as option b).

The latest (and probably final) survey is already out. Anyone who wants to vote on the proposed options below can do so via email. Hopefully we can discuss this one on Wednesday's call before we call for the final vote.

Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391


Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>

03/27/2006 02:52 AM

To	Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [sdd] 2.13.3

Julia,

I understood you are fine with the current 2.13.1 and prefer removal of 2.13.3.

I still believe there is a difference between them, since the former talks
about the localized text inside SDD descriptor itself and the latter talks
about the solution content to be installed. Since I don't hear any comments
on the mail reflector, could you please provide a survey among choices on 2.13.3?

As my understanding we had choices for 2.13.3 below:
a) Delete it.
b) The SDD specification must support localized solution content.
c) The SDD specification must support defining default,
   fallback or constraints on selection of the localized content that may
   be installed, based on the locale of the host environment.
d) 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.

Thanks in advance!

 -Keisuke

Julia McCarthy wrote:
> I think the version of 2.13.1 in the current requirements doc is fine:
>
>       *2.13.1 For all content in the SDD which would be displayed to the
>       Install Operator, the specification must support the definition of
>       strings for multiple locales; i.e., this content must be
>       localizable.*
>                   UC: 19, 53, 209  
>       I think 2.13.1 satisfies UC 20 as well. Since 2.13.3 lists only
>       UCs 20 and 209, I agree now that it is redundant and can just be
>       deleted. (Somewhere along the way the wording for 2.13.3 was
>       changed to refer to solution content that is deployed instead of
>       SDD text translations. But it looks like that was a mistake since
>       UC 20 and 209 are both about the SDD text.)
>
>
>
> I propose that UC 20 be added to 2.13.1 and that 2.13.3 be dropped.
>
> Julia McCarthy
> Autonomic Computing Enablement
> julia@us.ibm.com
> Tie/Line 349/8156
> 877-261-0391
>
>
> Inactive hide details for Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>Keisuke
> Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>
>
>
>                         *Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>*
>
>                         03/24/2006 02:55 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
> Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>
> cc
>
> sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [sdd] 2.13.3
>
>
>
>
> Julia,
>
> I understand that you are proposing to differentiate 2.13.1 and 2.13.3
> from the viewpoint of where the localized text exists. Am I correct?
>
> I don't believe 2.13.1 and 2.13.3 should be merged, either. Rather I thought
> there is a difference between localized text being operable in the
> production
> on the target and being viewable by the administrator. Maybe it's the matter
> of how we describe the difference.
>
> Would you please be specific about how you would like to see as 2.13.1?
>
>  -Keisuke
>
> Julia McCarthy wrote:
>  > 2.13.x is covering both localization text visible to the install
>  > operator and the localization content of the solution. Unfortunately the
>  > language used confuses these two things. I don't believe 2.13.1 and
>  > 2.13.3 can be merged since one is about the text visible to the Install
>  > Operator and the other is about the content of the solution. I think
>  > 2.13.3 is about the localization content of the solution and the simple
>  > version is all that is needed. (The wording should be changed to make
>  > this clear. i.e localization should go back to localization content
>  > which is what it was earlier in the work on 2.13.3.)
>  >
>  > 2.13.3 The SDD specification must support localized solution content.
>  >
>  >
>  > Julia McCarthy
>  > Autonomic Computing Enablement
>  > julia@us.ibm.com
>  > Tie/Line 349/8156
>  > 877-261-0391
>  >
>  >
>  > Inactive hide details for Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>Keisuke
>  > Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>
>  >
>  >
>  >                         *Keisuke Fukui <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>*
>  >
>  >                         03/19/2006 08:10 PM
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > To
>  >
>  > jay@o-ms.com
>  >
>  > cc
>  >
>  > Julia McCarthy/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
>  >
>  > Subject
>  >
>  > Re: [sdd] 2.13.3
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Julia, Jay,
>  >
>  > Thanks for your posts.
>  > I myself prefer to take simpler and clearer statement in requirements in
>  > general:-)
>  >
>  > However, in this case, we have already a basic requirements on localized
>  > text support in another article:
>  >
>  > 2.13.1 For all content in the SDD which would be displayed to the
>  > Install Operator, the specification must support the definition of
>  > strings for multiple locales; i.e., this content must be localizable.
>  >
>  > If we go for the proposed simplest expression for 2.13.3, it seems less
>  > requiring than 2.13.1 and I'm not sure if we need both 2.13.1 and 2.13.3.
>  >
>  > 2.13.3: The SDD specification must support containing localized text.
>  >
>  > # ...though above is the most essential requirement anyway.
>  >
>  > So, I think we have options:
>  > a) remove 2.13.3 itself as it converges to 2.13.1
>  > b) make "defining default, fallback or constraints on selection
>  >    of the localized content" as an additional requirements to 2.13.1
>  >
>  > So I was proposing the description aiming at option b). I'd like to
>  > ask people again which one of the above option (or else) is the one
> for us.
>  >
>  >
>  > FYI, original 2.13.3 is supported by UC 20 and UC 209, which are also
>  > supporting 2.13.2.
>  > 20 Specialized Globalization install on non-English OS International
>  > users have their Operating Systems in their local languages. The
>  > installation program should be able to run gracefully on their OS. CA
>  > 209 Specialized Globalization Globalization The user interfaces
>  > (GUI/CLI) exposed by update package shall support localization. DELL
>  >
>  > http://www.casurveys.com/wsb.dll/90/SDD2.htm
>  >
>  >  -Keisuke
>  >
>  >  > 2.13.3 (or 2.13.x)
>  >  > (*My proposal*) The SDD specification must support defining default,
>  > fallback or constraints on selection of the localized content that may
>  > be installed, based on the locale of the host environment.
>  >  > (Combined suggestions from John, Julia and Rob) 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.
>  >  > (John/Christine 2.13.x) The SDD specification must support containing
>  > localized text.
>  >  > (CA's 2.13.x) The SDD specification must support defining
>  > localization constraints based on the locale of the host environment and
>  > the available localized content.
>  >  > (draft v06) The SDD specification must support the definition of the
>  > localized content which should run properly on all locale-specific
>  > versions of supported operating systems.
>  >  >
>  >  > I believe we are reaching more pruned, essential requirements set.
>  >  > My proposal here at this moment are rewrites for 2.13 and 2.13.3.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
>