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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

uiml message

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

Subject: Re: [uiml] Schedule of items to be completed before voting ontheCommittee Specification

On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 15:50 +0100, Robbie Schaefer wrote:
> Hi,
> > More organizational stuff:
> Below my personal opinion. What does the rest of the TC think?
> > - Is there really sufficient difference (or progress) w.r.t. the 3.0
> > specification to have a 4.0 specification? (don't want to start a riot
> > here, just to make sure there is a good motivation for doing this).
> I think so, additional to minor changes we introduced three major 
> modifications
> (layout, variables with arithmetic, template parameters) which resulted
> in about 10 new elements and has effects on most elements of the 
> specification.
> > - Can we split up the document, e.g. like the GRDDL specification does
> > it:
> >  => Specification Document (Metamodel, Namespaces, Schema and DTD
> > stuff, explanation for each element, mainly suitable for implementers of
> > UIML renderers and translators, but also for UIML users to get to know
> > the details)
> >  => Use Case Document (cases that cover the whole specification, with
> > examples, suitable for testing UIML renderers and translators but also
> > for UIML users)
> >  => Primer document  (introduction document to the technology, links to
> > implementation, suitable for UIML users)
> Would be very nice to have, but this would probably delay the completion
> of the standard.

Actually, I suggested this so we can complete the standard sooner: the
specification document contains the actual standard and should be less
in volume since the other two documents complement it with additional
materials now (extensive examples, implementation details etc.).

> >> I have found several small points for improvement/corrections in the
> >> document. How should we proceed?
> >> Should all the TC-members edit with "track changes" on in parallel and
> >> James tries to update the input
> >> he gets or should we pass the document as a token sequentially?
> >
> > Can we do it in the Wiki?
> You did not know the pains I suffered to get the stuff into the Wiki
> and the pains James suffered to reconstruct the specification from
> the Wiki again ;-) So as much as I usually like collaborating through
> a Wiki, in this case I am against it.

OK, I was not aware of these difficulties. 

Kris Luyten
Assistant Professor
Expertisecentrum voor Digitale Media - Hasselt University
Wetenschapspark 2, 3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium
tel.: +32 (0)11 268411
email: kris.luyten@uhasselt.be
web: http://research.edm.uhasselt.be/kris

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