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]

At 01:55 PM 5/8/2002 -0400, Eilon Reshef wrote:
I am not suggesting that the Consumer is not allowed to change JavaScript, rather the suggestion is that we wouldn't assume that it should. To me, that's because correctly analyzing code constructs (in any language) without executing them is anywhere from hard (from a practical perspective) to impossible (from a theoretical perspective, as Theory of Computation shows).

I don't see a connection between supporting modification of JavaScript
(which I agree is an open issue) and the need to support complete,
path wise analysis of it.  Leaving the halting problem aside for a bit, it
would seem possible to extend the Adaptation Description Language
proposed by IBM to include JavaScript modifications along with XML
and CSS ones.

This is not to say that WSIA can't define an interface that uses JavaScript (e.g., I assume the committee may decide to define JavaScript functions, events, etc.), but I guess that the question is can we require the Consumer to analyze JavaScript code to support action routing, for example?

Again, I don't see how leaving the second sentence out leads to
*requiring* the Consume to analyze or even modify JavaScript.  Such a
statement would seem to need a positive assertion that such modification
*is* a requirement (something which again, I view as open).

Customization is definitely something that we will be discussing in the Customization sub-committee. My working assumption is that the requirement below is rather generic, and applies to anywhere from the scope of WSIA in general, to action routing, unique tokens, etc., and that it might be changed as the Customization sub-committee proceeds.

I guess my take is that it is too generic.  It seems to be trying to
take a half step and would result in muddying things instead of making
them clearer.  If it really doesn't place any restrictions one way or the
other on our work, then it doesn't seem like a requirement and I would
argue it should not be included.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Fitts [mailto:sean@crossweave.com]
2. It MUST support JavaScript as an associated scripting language and MUST provide a way to support actions triggered by scripts. [Optional/Debate: However, it MUST NOT be assumed that scripting elements are modified by the Consumer in any way.]
Why do you feel that the second "MUST NOT" statement is necessary?
To me it seems overly restrictive since it impacts both what types of
customization we will support and where the customization will occur.
My understanding is that both of these issues are still up for debate/
description in the customization sub-group.


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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC