Markup Mixing Requirements From Nexaweb

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

(Copied into wiki from email from James Margaris to on 2006-06-28.)

It would certainly help me, and perhaps others as well, if these proposals laid out the problems they were solving and the goals to keep in mind. It's very difficult to evaluate proposals a very clear idea of what they are addressing. I think I can see what the what rationale for the proposals are but it's going to be hard to keep people on the same page if they all have to backfill the rationalization independently.

For example the Dojo/Tibco proposal doesn't specify how to put a Tibco widget inside a Dojo one. Because the proposal doesn't lay out the goals I don't know if this is an oversight, not an issue, was rejected for some reason, etc. (Please do not construe this as bashing the proposal in any way, I am just trying to understand it, and the XAP proposal has the same issue.)

From my perspective here are some issues an XML markup should address:

  1. Re-use existing markup for existing toolkits as much as possible without restricting them.
  2. Specify how to put toolkit A widget into toolkit B widget and vice-versa. In general arbitrarily mix widgets from different toolkits.
  3. Optimize the scanning of the page and widget creation. Dojo scans (or can scan, there are options) the page to look for Dojo widgets, and other toolkits may do the same thing. That's one scan per toolkit, when only 1 total should be needed. The Dojo/Tibco proposal seems address this but that isn't specifically called out. (I'm thinking some shared code would scan the document once for the oa-embed tags)
  4. Be pleasant from an end-user perspective in that they have to do as little as possible.

These proposals may already address these and/or other issues as well, but I for one would find it very helpful for the proposals to lay out at the start exactly what problems are being considered.

Thanks the the consideration,

James Margaris

Personal tools