>> Should we keep on collecting requirements?
>
> I was thinking the other night that even if not editable, the
> "dynamicity" of the presentation layer might be out of scope, but very
> important from a usability point of view.
>
> For example: say I consider some properties primary and some others
> secondary and I would like to present them in a "click and show/click
> and hide" way (this is the usability model, the actual presentation is
> another concern), where does this fit?
I had thought of this as something that could be a type of 'relational
representation' - the implementation of things like 'click to show'
being output-format dependent and often not possible.
> CSS decided not to have intrinsic scriptability, but it makes it very
> hard, for example, to create reusable DHTML widgets.
>
> Both microsoft and nescape have their own way of doing the "bindings" so
> that you can make things a little more portable, but I'm wondering if we
> should go that far or if we should just add priority information to our
> metadata and just let the presentation system figure out how to show it
> *and* what usage model to use.
>
> Thoughts?
...which means I would go with your latter characterization.
--
Ryan Lee
ryan_at_ryanlee.org
http://ryanlee.org/
Received on Tue Sep 07 2004 - 22:33:24 EDT