[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [uiml] Summary of issues raised by Takashi Endo and suggested UIML 4.0 changes
Thank you, Jo! I will now merge your changes in with mine to finish out this draft. I should be able to get it out to everyone tonight or tomorrow. Regards, Jim On 12/10/07, Jo Vermeulen <jo.vermeulen@uhasselt.be> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > The update can be found in attachment to this mail. > > -- Jo > > > On Dec 10, 2007 10:00 AM, Jo Vermeulen <jo.vermeulen@uhasselt.be > wrote: > > Oh I am sorry, I have overlooked this. I will send an updated version > around somewhere today. > > > > -- Jo > > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 10, 2007 9:02 AM, Robbie Schaefer <robbie@c-lab.de > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Just a small issue: The changes Jo applied to the DTD are not yet > reflected in Appendix D "UIML 4.0 Document Type Definition" > > > > > > > > > All the best, > > > Robbie. > > > -- > > > _/ Dr. Robbie Schaefer _/ Phone: +49 5251 60-6107 _/ > > > _/ Visual Interactive Systems _/ Fax: +49 5251 60-6065 _/ > > > _/ C-LAB Fuerstenallee 11 _/ _/ > > > _/ D-33102 Paderborn _/ URL: http://www.c-lab.de _/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: Jo Vermeulen > > > To: Robbie Schaefer > > > Cc: Jim Helms ; uiml@lists.oasis-open.org ; Jan Meskens ; Kris Luyten > > > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:09 PM > > > Subject: Re: [uiml] Summary of issues raised by Takashi Endo and > suggested UIML 4.0 changes > > > > > > I did the same for d-template-param's, and also changed the syntax > (there was a small mistake in the examples, now d-template-param elements > don't have children, but instead a name attribute). > > > > > > The d-template-param element is now empty by the way (I'm using DTD's > EMPTY indicator). > > > > > > I also changed the example (Listing 10). It would be great if you guys > could have another look at it to make sure it is okay now. > > > > > > -- Jo > > > > > > > > > On Dec 5, 2007 10:31 AM, Robbie Schaefer < robbie@c-lab.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I attached the modified specification. I decided to rename the > > > > "id"-attribute of the variable-element into "name", to avoid > confusion. > > > > Variables don't need a unique identifier, since naming conflicts are > > > > resolved with the scoping rules and real ID's would be too > restrictive. > > > > > > > > I changed sections 6.8.5.1, 6.9 and the variable-element in the DTD. > All > > > > should be visible with track changes. > > > > > > > > BR, > > > > > > > > Robbie. > > > > -- > > > > _/ Dr. Robbie Schaefer _/ Phone: +49 5251 60-6107 _/ > > > > _/ Visual Interactive Systems _/ Fax: +49 5251 60-6065 _/ > > > > _/ C-LAB Fuerstenallee 11 _/ _/ > > > > _/ D-33102 Paderborn _/ URL: http://www.c-lab.de _/ > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Jim Helms" <jhelms@gmail.com> > > > > To: "Robbie Schaefer" <robbie@c-lab.de > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cc: <uiml@lists.oasis-open.org>; "Jo Vermeulen" > <jo.vermeulen@uhasselt.be > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 3:23 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [uiml] Summary of issues raised by Takashi Endo and > suggested > > > > UIML 4.0 changes > > > > > > > > > > > > > Robbie, > > > > > > > > > > Yes, go ahead and update that version. I have a version I am > working, > > > > > but I have not touched the variable section so it should be easy to > > > > > merge. > > > > > > > > > > Thank you! > > > > > Jim > > > > > > > > > > On 12/4/07, Robbie Schaefer <robbie@c-lab.de > wrote: > > > > >> Hi, > > > > >> > > > > >> > That is a good point. I like the way DISL handles this, but we > have > > > > >> > two considerations: 1) UIML sets a precedent with the <property> > > > > >> > element that establishes "name" as the way to reference an > existing id > > > > >> > without conflicting; and 2) the additional reference attribute > still > > > > >> > leaves us with the issue of having conflicting id's. The DISL > > > > >> > approach is very good for readability, but I think the problem > Mr. > > > > >> > Endo had was related to limitations of the DOM specification that > only > > > > >> > allows you to look up single elements by id. > > > > >> > > > > >> OK, now I got it :-) > > > > >> I could update the relevant parts WRT variables (Section 6.9 and > the > > > > >> DTD). > > > > >> Do I have the most current version? > (uiml-core-4.0-draft_RS021007.doc ) > > > > >> > > > > >> All the best, > > > > >> Robbie. > > > > >> -- > > > > >> _/ Dr. Robbie Schaefer _/ Phone: +49 5251 60-6107 _/ > > > > >> _/ Visual Interactive Systems _/ Fax: +49 5251 60-6065 _/ > > > > >> _/ C-LAB Fuerstenallee 11 _/ _/ > > > > >> _/ D-33102 Paderborn _/ URL: http://www.c-lab.de _/ > > > > >> > > > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > > > >> From: "Jim Helms" <jhelms@gmail.com> > > > > >> To: "Robbie Schaefer" <robbie@c-lab.de> > > > > >> Cc: < uiml@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > >> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 3:38 PM > > > > >> Subject: Re: [uiml] Summary of issues raised by Takashi Endo and > > > > >> suggested > > > > >> UIML 4.0 changes > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Robbie, thanks for you input! Additional comments below. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On 12/3/07, Robbie Schaefer < robbie@c-lab.de> wrote: > > > > >> >> > Suggested change: add an attribute to <variable> called > "id-ref" > > > > >> >> > that > > > > >> >> > is used to reference a variable after it is declared. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> We had thought of this when designing DISL and the current > sulution in > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> UIML-DTD is that we have an additional attribute for the > variable > > > > >> >> which > > > > >> >> specifies wether it is used as a declaration or as a reference: > > > > >> >> reference > > > > >> >> (true|false) "true". > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> However if all agree that id-ref is the more proper/consitent > solution > > > > >> >> (since it is used in other UIML-elements in the same fashion) I > could > > > > >> >> go > > > > >> >> through the relevant parts in the spec and change the examples > and > > > > >> >> explanations. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> The point in favor of the "reference"-Attribute is that it is > > > > >> >> implicitly > > > > >> >> set > > > > >> >> true, so that only once, for the declaration, a variable needs > to > > > > >> >> state > > > > >> >> the > > > > >> >> reference attribute, which IMHO adds to the readability of the > > > > >> >> UIML-document. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Anyway, I am open to both options. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > That is a good point. I like the way DISL handles this, but we > have > > > > >> > two considerations: 1) UIML sets a precedent with the <property> > > > > >> > element that establishes "name" as the way to reference an > existing id > > > > >> > without conflicting; and 2) the additional reference attribute > still > > > > >> > leaves us with the issue of having conflicting id's. The DISL > > > > >> > approach is very good for readability, but I think the problem > Mr. > > > > >> > Endo had was related to limitations of the DOM specification that > only > > > > >> > allows you to look up single elements by id. One way to solve > this > > > > >> > and use the DISL scheme would be to use a different attribute as > the > > > > >> > name of the variable and have an id attribute that's sole purpose > is > > > > >> > to uniquely identify the element within the document. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Whatever we decide, I believe we should choose a consistent > scheme to > > > > >> > handle this for <property>, <variable>, and <param>. Thus using > id in > > > > >> > the declaration and name for the references may serve for this > version > > > > >> > of the specification with further improvements to come in the > next > > > > >> > version. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Just my thoughts :) > > > > >> > Jim > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]