[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsrp][markup] Minutes for 5/29/02 conference call
|
Sub-Committee Lead Chris Braun Attending Members: Sasha Aickin Jeff Broberg TJ Cox Jane Dynin Gino Filicetti Michael Freedman Carsten Leue Rich Thompson Thomas Schaeck 1. URL Rewriting - Discussions on 4 scenarios: 1. Aggregator sends the prefix with request and portlets
must use to do URL boundary demarcation (aggregator does parsing); 2. all portlets use pre defined prefix, aggregator
parses mark up looking for well known prefix; 3. aggregator automatically parses the mark up uses heuristics to determines
URL. 4. aggregator sends the remote portlet the actual URL to
use, aggregator does not require any parsing Discussion (four
scenarios): We still have not come to a consensus on
which scenarios should be enforced by the spec.
As it stands we are looking at pursuing scenario 2 and/or scenario
4. We should track all stated pros and
cons of each approach with examples in the main Markup Document. Most of these pros/cons have been discussed
in previous emails. We discussed this
topic further. There were some concerns
about scenario 2 being a possible performance issue, as each set of markup has
to be parsed so that the proper URL replacements can be made. We can probably get away with requiring such
an operation but we should be cognizant of this and look for ways to alleviate
the intensity of the process. There were some concerns
that it will be difficult to implement scenario 4. Each platform may have different semantics
for what makes up the URL and how it should be encoded (.Net vs. servlet
containers). We should get specific
examples and add this to the main doc. It should be possible for
the producer to inform the consumer not to rewrite any URLs. This would be desirable if the portlet uses
scenario 4. Static content can not take
part in URL rewriting in scenario 4. Action: Hopefully we
will have enough information next week to make a decision on the general
semantic to use going forward. Discussion – (Mechanism
and Grammar): We defined 4 or 5 possible
types of URLs that portlets may include as part of their markup: 1. Fully qualified URL – Nothing needs to be done at the
consumer 2. Action links – URL rewritten so the consumer can
intercept the action and forward the action onto the portlet service via soap. 3. Proxy resource links – rewritten so the consumer can
intercept the resource request. The
resource can then either be pulled from an internal consumer cache or retrieved
via http. 4. Relative URI – For relative URIs the producer sends
the consumer the Base URI to be used when generating relative references. 5. Actions to other WSRP services? One
or more tokens may be required but In order to simplify the job for the
consumer the token should be parameterized so that a single token can be
used. After parsing, the consumer can determine how to do
the rewriting based on parameters. Action: We have not
yet touched on grammar. We need to
identify which of the 4 rewrite schemes will be supported. We then need to address what tokens will be
required for each. 2. CSS Classes – moved to next week’s agenda. 3. Mark-Up Fragment Rules We
previously agreed that it makes sense to allow a portlet writer to append
markup to other areas of the containing page besides the body. For example a style or script link may be
included in the <head>. Discussions: There were
concerns that each portlet that returned markup outside of the body tag would
block the consumer. In order to render
the containing page all portlets that need access to the <head> tag would
have to complete there markup generation.
It was decided that we would
address each tag with the appropriate standards group. 1. xforms:model - XForms and XHTML 2. link – HTML and XHTML 3. script – HTML and XHTML 4. meta - do we need to be concerned with <meta> tags? 5. others? Most
browsers allow such markup to exist in the <body>,
however, it does specifically state in the specs that such markup is
prohibited. In order to be proactive we
should push the appropriate groups to modify the specs to allow for these tags
within the confines of a <body> tag as long as the tag occurs before the
use. Consumer
defined regions such as tool bar should still be supported by the spec. Action: Chris Braun
will follow up with XFORMS and XHTML/HTML on this for next week. 4. Meeting closed 5. Next Meeting – June 5th |
Attachment:
Minutes-May-29.doc
Description: MS-Word document
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC