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

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

sdd message

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


Subject: RE: [sdd] 2.13.3 AND 2.13.2


Christine, 

 

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
Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>"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/

--
c
a

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


Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>"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

Inactive hide details for "Patton, John H" <John.Patton@ca.com>"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>
> >
>
>
>
>



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