[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,and CAN su pport edit
Yes ... that is why I said I could be talked into MAY (probably said CAN at
the time, but it actually is MAY). On a slightly less abstract level, there
are many places where we encourage a behaviour essentially in order to
provide more uniform user experiences. That is the essense of why I favor
SHOULD ...
By the way, whichever way we decide this should also be applied to help,
minimized and maximized .... same logic will apply.
Rich Thompson
"Eilon Reshef"
<eilon.reshef@webc To: Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
ollage.com> cc: <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/04/2002 12:29 and CAN su pport edit
PM
Rich,
The challenge I'm having regarding this SHOULD/MAY decision is that
typically MUST/SHOULD/MAY refer to a compliant implementation. I agree
that a compliant implementation of a portlet SDK SHOULD allow developers
to create EDIT mode.
However, the situation we're facing in this area (as well as in other
areas in the spec), is that we end up putting constraints on the portlet
developer. That is, the portlet developer may have perfectly valid
reasons for not using EDIT mode (without "understanding the full
implications"). Examples that were brought up include lack of need for
personalization, but also simple benefit versus cost considerations
(e.g., if only 2% of my users configure my portlet, would I spend 20%
more development time on this feature or would I rather focus on adding
more appealing functionality to the portlet?).
Another way to look at it is that technology-wise, implementing EDIT
mode is completely optional (MAY). Business-wise, we are trying to drive
more people do develop EDIT mode, and hence we want to influence them to
spend this extra effort by suggesting it's important.
I believe the spec should focus on the technology. That, WSRP-wise, a
portlet developer MAY (or may not :-) develop EDIT mode. I.e., Consumers
"MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
not include the (EDIT) option". Although we may want to encourage
developers to put EDIT mode, that's a business decision and IMHO me
should let our respective companies' marketing department take care of
that part of the education.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:53 AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and CAN
su pport edit
RFC2119 defines SHOULD as:
"This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
while MAY is defined as:
"This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)"
My argument in favor of SHOULD is that those cases where it makes sense
to
not implement edit mode need to be carefully thought through.
Limitations
on deployment and ability of the user to personalize the entity need to
be
understood before making this choice. The choice is still available,
just
not completely up to the whim of the developer.
Rich Thompson
Gil Tayar
<Gil.Tayar@webcol To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
lage.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/03/2002 11:58 and CAN su pport
edit
PM
Rich,
I totally agree on the must, and the new issues you raised clinch it for
me.
On the CAN issue, we must not forget that WSIA is in this too. A SHOULD
requirement for every portlet to implement state change is a bit heavy
on
the Producer who just doesn't need that capability. To use your argument
-
entities with a planned deployment to Consumers who manage their own
personalization UI would not need to do this, but nevertheless, the spec
recommends them to do so.
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue, December 03, 2002 15:54
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and CAN
su pport edit
At the Sept F2F in Germany we explicitly made state change independent
of
mode. Another reason that edit mode can not become a MUST is that we
decided Consumer generated UIs for personalization had to be supported
by
the spec. Entities with a planned deployment to only such an environment
should not be required to implement their own UI as well.
I could be talked into dropping this level to a CAN, but would resist.
While I will argue it can not be required, I also think entity
developers
should think carefully and develop significant reasons before deciding
not
to implement edit mode. This is exactly the meaning of SHOULD. Dropping
it
to CAN would make it totally optional ... I think good reasons are
needed
when choosing not to implement edit mode (and that they are possible).
Rich Thompson
Interaction Middleware and Standards for Portal Server
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Yorktown Heights, NY
(914) 945-3225
richt2@us.ibm.com
"Tamari, Yossi"
<yossi.tamari@sap To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/02/2002 01:39 and CAN su pport
edit
PM
Hi Gil,
I probably don't understand your question, but the entityStateChange is
already in InteractionParams, and I think one of the reasons for this
was
specifically this use case.
If my memory serves me well, Sasha raised this in the F2F in Germany.
Where do you see the problem?
Yossi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:34 PM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
and
CAN su pport edit
Ouch! So the entityStateChange is relevant for view mode too? The
Consumer can't assume that state change won't occur in view mode?
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamari, Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002 20:30
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support
help,
and CAN su pport edit
Hi,
For 1, my answer is that an entity may support
personalization
through its view mode (for example by simply remembering the
last values a user entered in a text input).
Yossi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:59 PM
To: 'Gil Tayar'; wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD
support
help, and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
FWIW. I guess that the questions are:
1. Are we allowing personalization for an entity that
doesn't support the Edit mode (if so, how)?
2. Are there other reasons, not personalization, for
supporting an Edit mode?
Take care.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:58 AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity
SHOULD
support help, and CAN su pport edit
Let's go that route -
Edit mode is defined (5.10.2) as "[providing]
content and logic that let a user customize the
behavior of the entity". Let's define
personalization as "enabling the user to
customize
the behavior of the entity".
Thus, the sentence "the entity MUST support edit
mode if it allows personalization" becomes "the
entity MUST support content and logic that let a
user customize the behavior of the entity if it
enables the user to customize the behavior of
the
entity".
The expanded sentence above is almost a
tautology,
except for the fact that entities may enable
customization of their behaviors out-of-band.
Thus,
an entity that enables the user to customize the
behavior of the entity out-of-band may want NOT
to
support WSRP content and logic that does the
same
(i.e. edit mode), for various reasons.
So, given the above precise definitions, I still
think this is a SHOULD.
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002 18:35
To: 'Gil Tayar';
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity
SHOULD support help, and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
It would seem that we have to describe
what
the edit mode is for (personalization?) in
unambiguous terms somewhere. Sometimes, I
am
a bit afraid that we are using a lot of
"SHOULDS" to cover uncertainty and
ambiguity
when it is up to us to know (or at least
act
like we know) the right answer.
Thoughts?
Take care.
Joe Rudnicki
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002
11:09
AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An
entity SHOULD support help, and CAN
su
pport edit
A MUST of this sort would need to
really describe what
"personalization"
is, and I wouldn't want to go to
that
route! With a SHOULD, I think we can
go
with a vague definition of
"personalization".
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT
NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002
17:55
To: 'Tamari, Yossi';
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164]
An entity SHOULD support help,
and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
Perhaps, "...MUST support edit
mode if it allows
personalization?"
Take care.
Joe
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tamari, Yossi
[mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: Sunday, December
01,
2002 1:18 PM
To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD
support help, and CAN su
pport edit
I second this. Many
entities simply do not
have
(need) an edit mode. A
"Top
business news" portlet
may
not be personalizable.
Maybe the wording should
be
"... SHOULD support edit
mode if it allows
personalization".
Yossi.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Sunday,
December 01, 2002
1:13 PM
To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
[wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity
SHOULD support
help,
and CAN support
edit
Issue: 164
Status: Active
Topic: interface
Class:
Minor_Technical
Raised by: Gil
Tayar
Title: An entity
SHOULD support
help,
and CAN support
edit
Date Added:
1-Dec-2002
Document Section:
v0.85/5.10
Description:
In v0.85, an
entity
SHOULD support
both
edit and help. I
think SHOULD for
edit
is too strong a
recommendation, as
it
puts a fantastic
burden on the
portlets. As Help
is
very simple to
implement, I think
the wording should
be
changed to: "an
entity SHOULD
support
help, and CAN
support
edit".
Gil Tayar
WebCollage
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC