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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsia message

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

Subject: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]

Title: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]
I also did not sign up for this debate, but I didn't sign up for any because I am not able to be responsible for carrying out the commitment. Until other decisions that are pending on contracts are decided, I didn't and don't want to volunteer, even though I have the time right now. While this may be true for everyone all the time, I just happen to have real irons in the fire right now.

As a Generic Graphic Designer, Flash gives me the kinds of options for interaction that I want, although for myself in particular I will attempt to switch over to SVG with several higher level scripting language options for handling the interaction to SVG output. However, the point is that Flash is fairly ubiquitous and we need to make some kind of accommodation to it.

I can see several kinds of options we might consider in practical terms, though I am not sure how to phrase these as requirements, nor if we should get that specific in a requirements documents--both extremes of exhaustive (and exhausting) detail and nearly total lack of specificity exist.


1: We could write and require a standard disclaimer for inclusion in the pages served up by Consumers to End Users of Flash and binaries, etc, saying something like "(Consumer-Provider) provides this (Service) on behalf of (Producer) without any capacity to alter it for our clients/subscribers/users."

2: We could  say that all output formats must be alterable or will simply not be covered as WSIA-compliant and let output vendors and Producers deal with it.

3: We could defer it to the next round and let the battle be fought elsewhere.

I favor Number 1, and specifically including HTML, XHTML, WML and XML.


At 1:06 AM -0400 5/6/02, Eilon Reshef wrote:
I'll put my 1.5 cents into this discussion, even though I didn't originally put my name for it :-)
I think that it more than makes sense that we shouldn't ask the Consumer to parse and modify Flash content, Java applets, or any other binary format.
The question in my mind (regarding the actual intent of this requirement) is: should the WSIA protocol *permit* some sequence of calls in which a WSIA Web Service that contains Flash/Java/ActiveX with links or forms would still work, even though it has user interaction, and even though "smart look-and-feel customization" (whatever this is) will not be offered.
This point - although seemingly minor - may have significant implications on the actual protocol with regards to action routing.
If we do decide that binary formats should be supported even at a basic level, then (at least according to my possibly limited understanding) this means that we must provide at least some way (not necessarily the "mainstream" way) for the Consumer to provide enough information to the Producer (who serves the binary data) so that the binary content is served in such a way in which all the actions are routed correctly to the Consumer. This means that the Producer has to take care of it, but it would make it doable.
We at WebCollage have encountered some cases where people used Flash for parts of their applications, so it made sense for us to consider it. However, we need to decide whether this is something that the WSIA committee as a whole cares about. 
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Kropp [mailto:akropp@epicentric.com]
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 8:41 PM
To: 'wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [wsia][wsia-requirements][R602]

R602 [Flexibility]
                This specification should support common Presentation
Formats, which are in use today in Net-enabled applications. In particular,
it should support HTML, XHTML, WML and XML as Presentation Formats. It must
not preclude the use of other presentation formats (Eilon: such as Flash,
GIFs, etc.). Debate on last sentence: AK, CW.
I think only XML and HTML (due to its ubiquity) markups should be supported
by name, other formats should be considered opaque in the markup stream.
Last sentence should read:  
 It must not preclude the use of other presentation formats, although these
(e.g., Flash, GIFs, etc.) shall be considered opaque in the markup stream.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC