Marketing Minutes 2008-04-22

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

URL: http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Marketing_Minutes_2008-04-22

Contents

OpenAjax Alliance Marketing Working Group meeting minutes 2008-04-22

Attendees

  • Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
  • Ric Smith, Kaazing
  • Kin Blas, Adobe
  • Ted Thibodeau, OpenLink SW
  • Alex Russell, Dojo
  • Adam Peller, IBM
  • Bertrand Le Roy, Microsoft

Resolutions from today

RESOLUTION: 3 conformance levels, Full, Intermediate and Limited. Full means product passes all conformance requirements using default configuration. Intermediate means passes all of the currently green rows, but not in default configuration, and only a simple configuration setting needs to be applied to achieve conformance. Limited is as before.

RESOLUTION: Jon to add clarification text above table to reinforce that you have to pass all rows from all specs, and non-applicability is a pass

RESOLUTION: There will be different conformance logos for each level (Full, Intermediate, and Limited)

RESOLUTION: Logo has word "Conformant" instead of "Conformance"

RESOLUTION: Need logo instructions about linking to the Conformance page

RESOLUTION: Jon to write up proposed logo usage rules

RESOLUTION: Jon needs to check to make sure we have language about inappropriate changes to logo. If not, then propose such language.

Original Agenda

Minutes

Kin: (regarding Registry) What if a toolkit uses multiple namespaces?

Jon: You mean XML namespaces?

Kin: Yes

Jon: That's for tomorrow's discussion of the Registry, but my thinking is that we should take an informal approach to namespaces. Just use the prefix in the Registry entry as a selector like "foo|whatever" and include description of foo prefix in the comments. But one thing to discuss tomorrow is whether we want to get more formal with prefix and have ns resolvers.

Mobile Ajax white paper

(Jon goes over current status, explains that this has been discussed multiple times in phone calls and on email, explains that Erwan/ILOG have done full editorial pass, and the next step is +1 voting by email. No comments from attendees.)

OpenAjax Conformance

http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/OpenAjax_Conformance

Jon: We talked for 1-2 hours at the face-to-face on conformance and registry and made some decisions. I updated the two wiki pages to reflect those decisions to the best of my ability and then did careful editorial review to make sure the pages would be understandable to the community.

Full vs Limited

Jon: One key resolution was that we decided on two conformance levels. (Jon reads the blurb on the goals for Full, which is that two Full conformance products should just work. Limited "depends" and requires some research.)

Alex: How do we know what is included in Full vs Limited?

Jon: There is a table at the bottom of the Conformance page that color-highlights the difference. The yellow rows are required for Limited. To have Full Conformance, you also have to support the green rows.

Alex: For Full, you shouldn't have anything that's not listed as approved.

Jon: What about jQuery and the "$"?

Bertrand: Any requirement that doesn't allow jQuery would be going too far. Need to be realistic.

Alex: What is conformant is hard to understand as a user. With jQuery, you have to turn on a mode. But with other toolkits, they are conformant out of the box.

Ted: This is one of the key issues always with interoperability. Usually everyone has to change something. It doesn't accomplish anything if the rules make it so everything that exists is classified as conformant.

Alex: As the rules are written now, we aren't realizing the interoperability goals we have described fro Full.

Jon: What you are proposing is that to be Full Conformant, all features are namespaced by default under approved Registry entries

Alex: Yes

Jon: I worry that this might be too hardcore and make it so that some toolkits decide the cost/benefit tradeoff of pursuing OpenAjax Conformance isn't worthwhile

Adam: They still would have Limited Conformance

Ted: Limited pretty much just means documenting your toolkit

Jon: Yes, but a little more, such as calling registerLibrary.

Bertrand: My feeling is that setting a flag that turns on a mode that is conformant is good enough

Ted: Disagree. That shouldn't be sufficient.

Alex: I'm more sympathetic to the flag approach.

Ted: My feeling is that using a flag instead of default behavior pushes you to either Limited or we need a 3rd level

Adam: A strict conformance level?

(some discussion and research into other conformance initiatives)

Jon: Regarding simple flag, what about jQuery? It is about as simple as it can be, with only one line of JavaScript to be well-behaved?

Bertrand: In fact, function approach is more flexible because it can happen after initial loading. I can't think of a better pattern.

RESOLUTION: 3 conformance levels, Full, Intermediate and Limited. Full means product passes all conformance requirements using default configuration. Intermediate means passes all of the currently green rows, but not in default configuration, and only a simple configuration option (e.g., one-line of JavaScript) needs to be applied to achieve conformance. Limited is as before.

Kin: To be OpenAjax Conformant, must a toolkit ship with the Hub?

Jon: No. Just check to see if the Hub has been source'd in before your toolkit, and if so, register your toolkit. Can be only two lines of JavaScript to pass the Hub 1.0 requirements.

Versioning

(Jon summarizes decision from face-to-face, where we start of with OpenAjax 1 with our first specs, presumably Hub 1.0 and Registry 1.0, and then bump up to OpenAjax 2, OpenAjax 3 with each new spec)

Ted: OK so long as you know that which features you need to support

Jon: The table at the bottom shows all of the conformance requirements you need to support

Ted: People need to know that they have to conform to both the Hub requirements and the Registry requirements

RESOLUTION: Jon to add clarification text above table to reinforce that you have to pass all rows from all specs, and non-applicability is a pass

Logos

(Jon summarizes that logos can only be used by products that are Full Conformant)

Ted: I would be happier with badged logos.

Jon: Badged?

Ted: Includes the conformance level, Full, Intermediate, or Limited

Kin: As an overlay?

Ted: Yes

Jon: OK

RESOLUTION: There will be different conformance logos for each level (Full, Intermediate, and Limited)

Adam: What about localized logos?

Jon: If you need a localized logo, people can contact me.

Ted: Would be better if logo said "Conformant" instead of "Conformance"

Jon: OK

RESOLUTION: Logo has word "Conformant" instead of "Conformance"

Bertrand: Should there be a standard URL to which the logo links to?

Jon: Yes.

(discussion about color coded logos, but not pursued due to complexities, such as accessibility)

RESOLUTION: Need logo instructions about linking to the Conformance page

Bertrand: We should have guidelines about the use of logos

Ted: Include alt tag for Limited vs Full vs Intermediate

Jon: Our logo and trademarks page so far has simple and easy instructions, much less complicated that other sites. I propose that we go for simple and minimal guidelines. I'll write up proposals.

RESOLUTION: Jon to write up proposed logo usage rules

What if abuses section

(Jon mentions that we have talked about conformance vs compliance vs certification many times and concluded that we are going for conformance with industry policing itself)

Bertrand: Weird to assume everyone will play along and won't use logo incorrectly

Jon: I may have gone to far on saying we are unlikely to take action.

RESOLUTION: Remove last sentence of abuses section (which says alliance probably won't do anything)

Table at bottom

Jon: Anyone see anything wrong with the classifications between what is in Limited versus what is in Full vs Intermediate?

(no objections)

Wrapup discussion

Jon: Any other comments or questions?

Bertrand: Can non-members claim conformance?

Jon: I was assuming yes, and can use the logos, too

Ted: Maybe Full Conformance can only be available to members?

(decided to not make changes and keep it so that non-members can claim conformance and use logos)

Bertrand: May need to add statements to prevent poeple from using logo in inappropriate ways, such as changing the logo into something new

Jon: I have to check on the current legal statements on the website to see if we already have that. My guess is no.

RESOLUTION: Jon needs to check to make sure we have language about inappropriate changes to logo. If not, then propose such language.

Retrieved from "http://www.openajax.org/member/wiki/Marketing_Minutes_2008-04-22"
Personal tools