[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2
Comments on the section drafts: 2.1 Question for the TC: Do we need to distinguish between normative
and non-normative text? If so, how? [djd]
– are you referring to some typeface convention here? At what point do we identify the elements that need to
align with ACF? Isn’t this one of the sections that needs to be
converged? Should we at a minimum put the alignments into the document? Re: schemaVersion Is there an assumption that schema versions are upwardly
compatible? If no, would there ever be a situation where you would want
to identify 2 schemas? (Note, I don’t necessarily think that this
would be a good idea, but think we should consider the consequences of a change
in schema which would not be upwardly compatible) Do we need to include a required compliance level in the
iudd attributes? Re: descriptorID Question for the TC: What does it mean for the creation of
compatible implementations to allow this variability in how descriptors are
identified? What are we identifying here? It’s just the
descriptor itself, right? Not the underlying solution or any of it’s
constituent parts? So I’m not sure that I see the value of deriving
a unique descriptorID from the packageIdentity or external input. In
fact, I think that the uses for the descriptorID are primarily within the
development phase, except that it might be useful for implementations to know
that they have already deployed a specific packaging (not results, which may be
achieved multiple ways) but that this specific construction has already been
applied. In the development phase, I would think that any tools
that construct or edit descriptors would want to use a unique descriptorID, as
the descriptors may be at times without any related artifacts and/or a
packageIdentity that is in flux. What is the use case for deriving
identity of a descriptor by matching key properties or using external input? Re: build Question for the TC: With all potential unique identifiers
defined as optional, it is possible that a descriptor could have not defined
unique identity. That may be fine. Is it? I’m concerned that we’re adding a lot of
potential complexity here for little or no value. What’s the
benefit of not requiring that a descriptorID / build combination be unique? Re the text for the attribute itself, it’s
identified as a non negative integer, but the text discusses a build date.
I think that this section isn’t clear. Change “build date”
to “value in the build attribute”. Re: language_bundle Comment – use of a different convention here for
naming, shouldn’t this be languageBundle? What do we do if there are multiple language
bundles? Are we constraining translations to a single bundle? Isn’t
there a requirement to allow the addition of an individual language to an
otherwise complete package? Question for the TC: META_INF directory is defined
in the packaging spec. Should the SDD spec refer to the packaging spec? Perhaps the data here should be the languages supported,
rather than a path to a bundle? 2.2 Do we expect to recommend a best practice for avoiding
name collisions? (ACS recommends one already, correct?) Re contentType and packageType: what is the
expectation wrt implementations for handling this? Are there any
enumerated values which are inherent to the specification and required by all
implementations? 3.1 Question for the TC: Must or Should? Does
interoperability require “Must”? Do we intended to define a
schema that support interoperability at this level – i.e. the level of
human readable explanatory information not just deployment declarations? I think that it is “should”. The use of
the human readable explanatory information is implementation specific, but the
information itself (provided by the developer, packager or systems integrator) is
extremely valuable to the next level in the food chain, or to the end user by
default. 3.2 Question for the TC: Shall we combine BaseIdentity with
Identity since BaseIdentity is not used anywhere else? Why did you compose it separately in the first
place? In general I do not mind having a level of abstraction that allows
for use of BaseIdentity in other constructs while retaining the ability to
extend Identity. It really doesn’t cost anything except a wee bit
of complexity. Sentence needs fixing: “If used, it represents
the version the thing identified by the name field.” Missing “of”? Debra J. Danielson CA VP, Development Center for Technology Architecture Tel: +1 908 874 9838 Fax: +1 908 874 3149 Cell: +1 732-331-3383 Debra.Danielson@ca.com |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]