[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,and CAN su pport edit
Echoing Eilon's reasoning, is that I would rather let the market decide
whether this is a SHOULD or a MAY, and not the WSRP committee. If the market
decides it's a SHOULD (i.e. most Consumers will need it, and therefore most
portlets will code it), then maybe in one of the following versions we need
to rethink the "MAY" decision. If the market decided _against_ it, then we
would be glad that we decided to stick by "MAY".
I definitely agree with you on the "help"...
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 19:41
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and CAN su
pport edit
Yes ... that is why I said I could be talked into MAY (probably said CAN at
the time, but it actually is MAY). On a slightly less abstract level, there
are many places where we encourage a behaviour essentially in order to
provide more uniform user experiences. That is the essense of why I favor
SHOULD ...
By the way, whichever way we decide this should also be applied to help,
minimized and maximized .... same logic will apply.
Rich Thompson
"Eilon Reshef"
<eilon.reshef@webc To: Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
ollage.com> cc:
<wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/04/2002 12:29 and CAN su pport edit
PM
Rich,
The challenge I'm having regarding this SHOULD/MAY decision is that
typically MUST/SHOULD/MAY refer to a compliant implementation. I agree that
a compliant implementation of a portlet SDK SHOULD allow developers to
create EDIT mode.
However, the situation we're facing in this area (as well as in other areas
in the spec), is that we end up putting constraints on the portlet
developer. That is, the portlet developer may have perfectly valid reasons
for not using EDIT mode (without "understanding the full implications").
Examples that were brought up include lack of need for personalization, but
also simple benefit versus cost considerations (e.g., if only 2% of my users
configure my portlet, would I spend 20% more development time on this
feature or would I rather focus on adding more appealing functionality to
the portlet?).
Another way to look at it is that technology-wise, implementing EDIT mode is
completely optional (MAY). Business-wise, we are trying to drive more people
do develop EDIT mode, and hence we want to influence them to spend this
extra effort by suggesting it's important.
I believe the spec should focus on the technology. That, WSRP-wise, a
portlet developer MAY (or may not :-) develop EDIT mode. I.e., Consumers
"MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does not
include the (EDIT) option". Although we may want to encourage developers to
put EDIT mode, that's a business decision and IMHO me should let our
respective companies' marketing department take care of that part of the
education.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:53 AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and CAN su
pport edit
RFC2119 defines SHOULD as:
"This word, or the adjective "RECOMMENDED", mean that there
may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore a
particular item, but the full implications must be understood and
carefully weighed before choosing a different course."
while MAY is defined as:
"This word, or the adjective "OPTIONAL", mean that an item is
truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item because a
particular marketplace requires it or because the vendor feels that
it enhances the product while another vendor may omit the same item.
An implementation which does not include a particular option MUST be
prepared to interoperate with another implementation which does
include the option, though perhaps with reduced functionality. In the
same vein an implementation which does include a particular option
MUST be prepared to interoperate with another implementation which
does not include the option (except, of course, for the feature the
option provides.)"
My argument in favor of SHOULD is that those cases where it makes sense to
not implement edit mode need to be carefully thought through. Limitations on
deployment and ability of the user to personalize the entity need to be
understood before making this choice. The choice is still available, just
not completely up to the whim of the developer. Rich Thompson
Gil Tayar
<Gil.Tayar@webcol To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
lage.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/03/2002 11:58 and CAN su pport
edit
PM
Rich,
I totally agree on the must, and the new issues you raised clinch it for
me.
On the CAN issue, we must not forget that WSIA is in this too. A SHOULD
requirement for every portlet to implement state change is a bit heavy on
the Producer who just doesn't need that capability. To use your argument
-
entities with a planned deployment to Consumers who manage their own
personalization UI would not need to do this, but nevertheless, the spec
recommends them to do so.
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tue, December 03, 2002 15:54
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and CAN su
pport edit
At the Sept F2F in Germany we explicitly made state change independent of
mode. Another reason that edit mode can not become a MUST is that we decided
Consumer generated UIs for personalization had to be supported by the spec.
Entities with a planned deployment to only such an environment
should not be required to implement their own UI as well.
I could be talked into dropping this level to a CAN, but would resist. While
I will argue it can not be required, I also think entity developers should
think carefully and develop significant reasons before deciding not to
implement edit mode. This is exactly the meaning of SHOULD. Dropping it to
CAN would make it totally optional ... I think good reasons are needed when
choosing not to implement edit mode (and that they are possible). Rich
Thompson Interaction Middleware and Standards for Portal Server IBM T.J.
Watson Research Center Yorktown Heights, NY
(914) 945-3225
richt2@us.ibm.com
"Tamari, Yossi"
<yossi.tamari@sap To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
.com> cc:
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
12/02/2002 01:39 and CAN su pport
edit
PM
Hi Gil,
I probably don't understand your question, but the entityStateChange is
already in InteractionParams, and I think one of the reasons for this was
specifically this use case. If my memory serves me well, Sasha raised this
in the F2F in Germany. Where do you see the problem?
Yossi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:34 PM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help, and
CAN su pport edit
Ouch! So the entityStateChange is relevant for view mode too? The
Consumer can't assume that state change won't occur in view mode?
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamari, Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002 20:30
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support help,
and CAN su pport edit
Hi,
For 1, my answer is that an entity may support personalization
through its view mode (for example by simply remembering the
last values a user entered in a text input).
Yossi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 6:59 PM
To: 'Gil Tayar'; wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD support
help, and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
FWIW. I guess that the questions are:
1. Are we allowing personalization for an entity that
doesn't support the Edit mode (if so, how)?
2. Are there other reasons, not personalization, for
supporting an Edit mode?
Take care.
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:58 AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity SHOULD
support help, and CAN su pport edit
Let's go that route -
Edit mode is defined (5.10.2) as "[providing]
content and logic that let a user customize the
behavior of the entity". Let's define
personalization as "enabling the user to customize
the behavior of the entity".
Thus, the sentence "the entity MUST support edit
mode if it allows personalization" becomes "the
entity MUST support content and logic that let a
user customize the behavior of the entity if it
enables the user to customize the behavior of the
entity".
The expanded sentence above is almost a tautology,
except for the fact that entities may enable
customization of their behaviors out-of-band. Thus,
an entity that enables the user to customize the
behavior of the entity out-of-band may want NOT to
support WSRP content and logic that does the same
(i.e. edit mode), for various reasons.
So, given the above precise definitions, I still
think this is a SHOULD.
Gil
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002 18:35
To: 'Gil Tayar';
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An entity
SHOULD support help, and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
It would seem that we have to describe what
the edit mode is for (personalization?) in
unambiguous terms somewhere. Sometimes, I am
a bit afraid that we are using a lot of
"SHOULDS" to cover uncertainty and ambiguity
when it is up to us to know (or at least act
like we know) the right answer.
Thoughts?
Take care.
Joe Rudnicki
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:09
AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164] An
entity SHOULD support help, and CAN su
pport edit
A MUST of this sort would need to
really describe what "personalization"
is, and I wouldn't want to go to that
route! With a SHOULD, I think we can go
with a vague definition of
"personalization".
-----Original Message-----
From: Rudnicki Joseph G CONT NSSC
[mailto:RudnickiJG@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Mon, December 02, 2002
17:55
To: 'Tamari, Yossi';
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#164]
An entity SHOULD support help,
and CAN su pport edit
Hello,
Perhaps, "...MUST support edit
mode if it allows
personalization?"
Take care.
Joe
-----Original
Message-----
From: Tamari, Yossi
[mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: Sunday, December 01,
2002 1:18 PM
To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity SHOULD
support help, and CAN su
pport edit
I second this. Many
entities simply do not have
(need) an edit mode. A "Top
business news" portlet may
not be personalizable.
Maybe the wording should be
"... SHOULD support edit
mode if it allows
personalization".
Yossi.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Sunday,
December 01, 2002
1:13 PM
To:
wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#164] An entity
SHOULD support help,
and CAN support edit
Issue: 164
Status: Active
Topic: interface
Class:
Minor_Technical
Raised by: Gil Tayar
Title: An entity
SHOULD support help,
and CAN support edit
Date Added:
1-Dec-2002
Document Section:
v0.85/5.10
Description:
In v0.85, an entity
SHOULD support both
edit and help. I
think SHOULD for edit
is too strong a
recommendation, as it
puts a fantastic
burden on the
portlets. As Help is
very simple to
implement, I think
the wording should be
changed to: "an
entity SHOULD support
help, and CAN support
edit".
Gil Tayar
WebCollage
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
----------------------------------------------------------------
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