Comments on Guidance - UI Preview

• CLOSED (IanGreen, 3 May 2010) I think the use of a custom media type is unfortunate; i would prefer to see standard media-types accessible at advertised URIs for UI preview. You suggest transpartent query-like URIs (base?preview=oslc), for example. Connected resource models could also link to such resources.
  • Response: following discussion at OSLC meeting 3rd May 2010. UI Preview requirements justify introductioin of new media type.
• CLOSED (IanGreen, 3 May 2010) The spec states "If this becomes known to the Consumer, the Consumer SHOULD assume that this information is better and use it to improve and replace the default link display. When available, dc:name MAY be used instead of dc:title in presentations where visual space is severely limited." Does this mean that the consumer should update its persisted data, or that it should update the presented data? I'm concerned here that the consumer and provider could be so implemented that data is access by a consumer outside the provider's security model.
  • Response: the language in the spec was updated to remove any perceived implication that the UI preview properties should be used by the client to update the source resource.
• CLOSED (Adam Archer, 25 July 2010) The spec is not clear on the valid values for the Preview sizing properties and does not adequately describe how a consumer is expected to use these values.
  • Response: the spec was updated to make it clear that the sizing properties may have an valid relative length value as defined by the W3 CSS spec. This allows px, em, and ex relative length values and excludes absolute values. Additionally, language was added to the spec to indicate that the client is expected to use these relative length values in combination with client default system font values.
• CLOSED (Jim des Rivieres, 25 July 2010) Given recent decisions in the Core workgroup on xml and rdf/xml representation formats, the UI Preview specification is a bit out of step. It should probably just identify the specific XML representation constraints rather than referring to Core guidance rules for XML.
  • Response: XML representation syntactic and semantic constraints have been added to the spec.