OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrp] [CR310] - Add doctype fields


With doctype and cc/pp, the Consumer is supplying some data that the 
portlet could make use of for rendering, and it is not necessarily 
anything that the portlet asked for. So, I'm not sure if public 
parameters is a good fit.

We could possibly have an extensible set of parameters, and the spec 
could list (non-normative) some common parameter names and what they mean.

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> The public parameter concept doesn't fit well with a bidirectional flow 
> of data. However, I would agree that the proposal for doctype does fit 
> well with the public parameter model (Portlet requests Consumer supply a 
> particular piece of data and has reasonable fallbacks should the 
> Consumer choose to not supply it).
> 
> Subbu, would the spec defining such a public parameter for Portlet reuse 
> satisfy your use case?
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
> 
> 03/23/05 09:06 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"Subbu Allamaraju" <subbu@bea.com>, <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: [wsrp] [CR310] - Add doctype fields
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What prevented us leveraging the new public parameters feature for CC/PP
> was its inability to return a value. Maybe that should be addressed so
> that extensions could use the (render) parameter extension mechanism?
> 
> Regards,
> Andre
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:subbu@bea.com]
> Sent: 23 March 2005 14:00
> To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsrp] [CR310] - Add doctype fields
> 
> I agree with you both on the concern about proliferation of these
> parameters.  Any thoughts on how such well-known extensions should look
> like?
> 
> Subbu
> 
> Michael Freedman wrote:
>  > Additional good questions that add to my reservation of adding this to
> 
>  > MarkupParams.  I think I would rather us begin to define well-known
>  > extensions for consumers/producers to take advantage of if/when
>  > necessary.  Otherwise I worry the parameter list will continue to grow
> 
>  > over time as we find new use cases for additional information.  [By
> the
>  > way, this was also at the root of my questions/concerns about adding
> CC/PP]
>  >      -Mike-
>  >
>  > Rich Thompson wrote:
>  >
>  >>
>  >> Interesting point, but one could easily argue this is an issue with
>  >> what the framework makes available to the component rather than a
>  >> general issue (i.e. that decision could be easily changed).
>  >>
>  >> Thinking about this further led to the following questions:
>  >>
>  >>    1. Isn't this an html specific issue (i.e. doctype in addition to
>  >>       mimetype)? If so, that reduces its fundamental value to me.
>  >>    2. Wasn't the introduction of several doctypes part of a
>  >>       recognition on the part of the html standardization group that
> a
>  >>       significant body of legacy web sites existed? Should this be
>  >>       carried forward into the WSRP-enabled portlet world,
>  >>       particularly in light of this quote from our Primer; "WSRP
>  >>       raises the bar of conformance for this standard in many
> respects
>  >>       for what constitutes a good or effective portlet
> implementation.
>  >>       The specification makes specific recommendations regarding
>  >>       markup fragment rules, representing state, ensuring security,
>  >>       etc., with an eye toward maximizing the usefulness and
> integrity
>  >>       of portlet services."? If WSRP is truly raising the bar, it
>  >>       seems advocating adherence to the strict doctype should be part
>  >>       of that.
>  >>    3. Are there any problems if a portlet generates a fragment of
>  >>       "strict" html which gets included on a page with the
>  >>       transitional html doctype?
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> Rich
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> *Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>*
>  >>
>  >> 03/17/05 06:13 PM
>  >>
>  >>                  
>  >> To
>  >>                  wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
>  >> cc
>  >>                  
>  >> Subject
>  >>                  Re: [wsrp] [CR310] - Add doctype fields
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>                  
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> I think the answer to whether the "consumer" knows the doctype is a
>  >> qualified "no".  Take for example someone who wants to build portlet
>  >> support into a generic application development platform.  The
> platform
>  >> would expose a developer friendly API for using/manipulating
>  >> consumer-side use of portlets and hide the gory details of
>  >> communicating with [remotw wsrp] portlets.  In such an environment
>  >> there is a clean and distinct separation between application code
> that
>  >> describes the structural rendering of the a consumer response and any
> 
>  >> given component in that structure that provides a portion of the
>  >> rendition.  Because doctype is likely just markup expressed in the
>  >> page, such components may find it difficult if not impossible to
>  >> determine what it is.  I.e. whereas you can get the locale, mimetype
>  >> and characters set from a servlet response you can't get the doctype.
>  >>    -Mike-
>  >>
>  >> Rich Thompson wrote:
>  >>
>  >> This change request raises a couple of questions for me:
>  >> 1. Will the Consumer always "know" the doctype for what will be
>  >> returned to the user agent at the time it invokes getMarkup? I think
>  >> the answer is "yes", but we should review this carefully.
>  >> 2. Are there other characteristics of the aggregated page that the
>  >> Portlet could make good use of? Currently we have locale, mime type
>  >> and character set ... any others?
>  >>
>  >> Rich
>  >>
>  >> *Subbu Allamaraju **_<subbu@bea.com>_* <mailto:subbu@bea.com>
>  >>
>  >> 02/02/2005 11:19 AM
>  >>
>  >>                  
>  >> To
>  >>                  _wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org_ 
> <mailto:wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
>  >> cc
>  >>                  
>  >> Subject
>  >>                  Re: [wsrp] [CR310] - Add doctype fields
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>                  
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> For the reasoning, I meant to say
>  >>
>  >> "Due to the legacy nature of web, some portal sites are designed to
>  >> generate either _strict_ or quirks mode HTML ..."
>  >>
>  >> I missed "strict" in my request sent to Rich.
>  >>
>  >> Subbu
>  >>
>  >> Rich Thompson wrote:
>  >> >
>  >> > Document: Specification
>  >> > Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
>  >> > Section: 6.1.9 MarkupParams Type
>  >> > Page: 31
>  >> > Old Text:
>  >> > New Text:
>  >> >
>  >> >     [O] string        doctype
>  >> >
>  >> >    - doctype: The value of the PUBLIC ID of the DOCTYPE
> declaration, if
>  >> > any, used by the Consumer. Consumers using legacy or strict style
> HTML
>  >> > may supply the DOCTYPE. Producers MAY honor such DOCTYPE while
>  >> > generating markup.
>  >> >
>  >> > Document: WSRP1.0
>  >> > Section: 5.1.10 MarkupType Type
>  >> > Page: 20
>  >> > Old Text:
>  >> > New Text:
>  >> >
>  >> >      [O] string      doctypes[]
>  >> >
>  >> >     - doctypes: An array of DOCTYPE declarations that the Portlet
> can
>  >> > support.
>  >> >
>  >> > Reasoning:
>  >> >
>  >> > Due to the legacy nature of web, some portal sites are designed to
>  >> > generate either or quirks mode HTML markup and expect browsers to
>  >> > interpret the markup accordingly. Browsers use the HTML DOCTYPE
>  >> > declaration to indicate browsers which mode to use. For example,
> the
>  >> > following DOCTYPE declaration can be used for strict
> interpretation:
>  >> >
>  >> > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
>  >> >      _"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"_
>  >> <http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd>>
>  >> >
>  >> > During an earlier discussion, the following issues have been
> identified:
>  >> >
>  >> > a. Consumers do not know whether a portlet can generate markup in a
>  >> > given DOCTYPE.
>  >> > b. Portlets do not know what kind of DOCTYPE to expect.
>  >> >
>  >> > The above changes address these issues. Please note that, in order
> to
>  >> > preserve backwards compat, both these elements are optional, and
> the
>  >> > behavior is unspecified when the doctypes are not supplied by
> either
>  >> side.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> 
>  >> of the OASIS TC), go to
>  >>
> _http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgro
> up.php_.
>  >>
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrp-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsrp-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrp-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsrp-help@lists.oasis-open.org
> 
> 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]