[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [uiml] Schedule of items to be completed before votingontheCommittee Specification
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 08:53 -0800, James Helms wrote: > Thanks for all the excellent feedback! I will add both of your items to > my schedule of remaining tasks. > > > 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. > > > > <JIM> I agree with Robbie. We have increased the number of tags in the > language by about 25% (depending on how you look at it), and increased > the complexity of the language several fold :). Don't misunderstand me, > I think the additional flexibility provided is very useful and the > additions are well received. </JIM> OK by me. > > > > - 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.). > > <JIM> Kris, could you describe how you think it will speed the process? > My first thought mirrored Robbie's... Would the specification document > hold basically no examples? The specification should only contain small examples such as is the case for most elements so for a large part of the document this would not change anything. But I think the next sections could be omitted from a specification document and included in another (cross-referenced) document: - 6.2.1. Naming an Existing Vocabulary in <presentation> (at least part of it) - 6.2.2. Creating a New Vocabulary Using <presentation> - 7.3 Practical use of templates > Instead they would be contained in the > separate use case docs? I think I see how the divisions would work, but > would like to make sure I understand correctly? Maybe you could provide > a brief outline of each document to give us a better idea of the > content?</JIM> I am not sure myself (my remark was inspired by the GRDDL specification), but here is an attempt: Outline of the specification would be mostly the same as it is now, just remove the parts that do not contribute to the specification itself. I admit this is not that much. The Use Case document should contain some larger examples that show the usefulness and applicability of UIML for "flexible user interface design and development". A primer document should contain an introduction ("what is it", "how to use the language" (cross-referencing the use cases), "what are the tools", "how to use the tools"). Regards, Kris -- 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]