This type of constraint needs to be included in the
descriptor for a specific component, so that the constraints can be accurately
be maintained during composition. This I presume is your “wider
context”, and I contend that the information about the acceptability of a
substitution for a specific locale may not be available to the integrator if it
is not part of the descriptor for the part.
Regards,
Debra
From: Christine
Draper [mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006
2:36 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND
2.13.2
John,
Please do make sure this is a separate requirement, so we can consider it
separately. I am not comfortable with requiring the SDD to support defining how
to decide the locale to use for a given package. My concern is similar to the
concern I have with defining priorities for choices of alternative topologies
or configurations - that this is typically a decision that needs to be made in
a wider context, not a good thing for the author of a specific SDD to impose.
Regards,
Christine
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road,
Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX
78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Patton,
John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>
"Patton,
John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>
03/08/2006 01:07 PM
|
To
|
"Danielson,
Debra J" <Debra.Danielson@ca.com>
|
cc
|
<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
RE: [sdd] 2.13.3
AND 2.13.2
|
|
I've been working within CA a bit on 2.13.x and we have an
additional requirement we want to make sure is covered:
2.13.x
The SDD specification must support defining localization constraints based on
the host environment and available localized text.
The
intent is to make sure the SDD can define constraints on how localized content
should be displayed when there is no localized content for the host
environment's locale.
Thoughts?
Also, I
expect someone's going to need to compile all the 2.13.x requirement
recommendations that have been discussed in this thread, so I'll do that before
today's meeting.
cheers,
/john
patton/
--
ca
Senior Software Engineer
Office: 630 505-6150
Cell: 847-224-9196
john.patton@ca.com
From: Julia McCarthy [mailto:julia@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:52 AM
To: Patton, John H
Cc: Christine Draper; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
I vote for 2.13 as proposed.
The SDD specification must support defining
localization content for multiple locales.
For 2.13.1 I suggest a modificatoin: 2.13.1
The SDD specification must support localized text within the SDD descriptor.
I'm not sure it is ok to refer to the SDD descriptor in a requirement, but we
do need to say something to distinguish this localized text from localized text
in the solution content.
Julia McCarthy
Autonomic Computing Enablement
julia@us.ibm.com
Tie/Line 349/8156
877-261-0391
"Patton, John H"
<John.Patton@ca.com>
"Patton,
John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>
03/08/2006 10:09 AM
|
To
|
Christine Draper/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, <sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
|
|
inline...
From: Christine Draper
[mailto:cdraper@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:18 PM
To: sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
Another
late entry...
I may be oversimplifying here, but for both of these, do we really need to say
more than:
The SDD specification must support defining
localization content for multiple locales.
[Patton, John H] I vote for this one as 2.13. :-)
It should be a requirement on runtimes that they support installing different
locales than the default machine locale, or to choose a suitable default if
there is no localization content for the chosen locale (according to policy, or
user query, or best practice, or...
[Patton, John H] I totally agree. That's been my hang-up with 2.13.2.
The other interpretation - which would make them follow-on requirements to
2.13.1 - is that they relate to the text in the descriptor itself which is
localized. I'd then suggest 2.13.1 covers this, and what's left is again a
runtime (install GUI) requirment.
[Patton, John H] Ooooh, I like that. Maybe:
2.13.1 The SDD specification must support containing localized text.
Cheers,
/john patton/
Regards,
Christine
Senior Technical Staff Member
IBM, 11501 Burnet Road,
Mail Point 901-6B10
Austin, TX
78758
1-512-838-3482 tl 678-3482
"Patton, John H"
<John.Patton@ca.com>
"Patton,
John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>
03/07/2006 02:08 PM
|
To
|
"Keisuke Fukui" <kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com>
|
cc
|
"Robert Dickau" <rdickau@macrovision.com>,
<sdd@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
|
RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
|
|
Inline...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keisuke Fukui [mailto:kfukui@labs.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 11:54 PM
> To: Patton, John H
> Cc: Robert Dickau; sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2
>
> Hi there,
>
> Opinion from a late comer:
[John Patton] Howdy, late comer. :-)
> The rewrite for 2.13.3 from people sounds
fine to me.
> The 2.13.2 seems to contain a different
requirement:
>
> 2.13.2 The SDD specification must support the
definition of
> the information in order to not preclude the
Install Operator
> from viewing the localized content in a
different locale from
> the target platform, or from installing
InstallableUnits that
> are tied to a different locale.
>
> I agree that the first half phrasing sounds
redundant with
> 2.13.3 (as Rob suggested) and propose to
prune it to read:
>
> 2.13.2 The SDD specification must not
preclude the Install
> Operator from viewing or installing the
localized content in
> a different locale from the target platform
or in a different
> locale from tied one.
[John Patton] I'm personally not a fan of
requirements saying what
things must not do. If we start listing what the
SDD specification
should not do, we will never finish it since that
list can literally be
endless. And any way I rewrite this seems to
relate directly to runtime
or tooling. I personally think this should
be in the "best practices"
section, but I'm willing to defer on this since it
will end up having no
direct bearing on the SDD specification itself.
Cheers,
/john patton/
> Yes, it's still up to the runtime or tooling
that fulfill the
> requirement, but the specification shouldn't
preclude the use
> case, either. FYI, as an example of the
listed use case 19, I
> sometimes need to view/install English
contents even if both
> the Japanese are available in contents and
the target system
> supports it.
>
> - Keisuke
>
>
> Patton, John H wrote:
> > Actually, the more I look at this, the
more I'm thinking
> that 2.13.2
> > is not necessary. That should be
handled during runtime or by the
> > tooling. Does anyone else agree
with me on that?
> >
> > 2.13.3 (modified rewrite with Rob's
suggestions) The SDD
> specification
> > must support defining a default or
fallback locale to be used in
> > hosting environments where localized
content is unavailable
> or has not
> > been defined for the hosting
environment's locale.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > /john patton/
> >
> > *--
> > **c**a
> > *Senior Software Engineer
> > Office: 630 505-6150
> > Cell: 847-224-9196
> > john.patton@ca.com <mailto:john.patton@ca.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > *From:* Robert Dickau [mailto:rdickau@macrovision.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 03,
2006 1:27 PM
> > *To:* Patton, John H;
sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [sdd]
2.13.3
> >
> > This rewording is much
clearer. I now read the
> requirement to mean
> > that one (the install
operator?) can specify "fall back
> > to Esperanto content when
the hosting environment's locale isn't
> > specifically
included".
> >
> > Predictably, I'd prefer
"must support definition of a default
> > locale" to
"support defining a default locale"; and
> would a phrase
> > like "fallback
locale" be more appropriate than "default locale"
> > to emphasize the intent of
the requirement?
> >
> > (Looking at it, though, it
doesn't seem much different from the
> > previous req 2.13.2, which
states the install operator should be
> > able to view content in
other than the target's locale.)
> >
> >
>
--------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > *From:* Patton, John H [mailto:John.Patton@ca.com]
> > *Sent:* Friday, 03 March
2006 11:33 am
> > *To:*
sdd@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* [sdd] 2.13.3
> >
> > I believe this meets the
spirit of the original.
> >
> > Suggestion:
> > 2.13.3
> > The SDD specification must
support defining a default
> locale to be
> > used in hosting
environments where localized content is
> unavailable
> > or has not been defined
for the hosting environment's locale.
> >
> > Original:
> > 2.13.3 The SDD
specification must support the ability
> for the author
> > to define the localized
content which should run properly on all
> > locale-specific versions
of supported operating systems.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > /john patton/
> >
> > *--
> > **c**a
> > *Senior Software Engineer
> > Office: 630 505-6150
> > Cell: 847-224-9196
> > john.patton@ca.com <mailto:john.patton@ca.com>
> >
>
>
>
>