When I open the JIRA (and make this change), should I modify all of the -adfinternal capabilities to -trinidadinternal and modify all of the capability names to use CSS style?
Take care, Joey On 8/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd vote for CSS style naming. Anyone else care? For the names, I'd have: xmlhttp (maybe xml-http)? internal-frames trinidad-partial-rendering -- Adam On 8/14/06, Joseph Rozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently we have the internal capability: > > -adfinternal-partialRendering > > How about we replaces these with three public capability: > > xmlhttp (true/false) > iframes (true/false) > trinidad-partialRendering (true/false) > > One thing about naming--it seems the capabilities use an odd mix of > dashes and camelcase. E.g. I would either expect > _adfinternalPartialRendering (Java style) or > -adfinternal-partial-rendering (CSS style). If we decide to change > this, then the last property would be > > trinidadPartialRendering > > or > > trinidad-partial-rendering > > Take care, > > Joey > > On 8/14/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hrm, good point. So now I'm thinking that we actually need both: > > a set of keys that are generic, and have nothing to do with > > Trinidad-specific features, and some keys that are Trinidad-specific, > > probably with a trinidad prefix. > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > On 8/14/06, Joseph Rozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 8/7/06, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ideally, we'd get rid of any specific "do you support PPR" > > > > and replace it with things that are less Trinidad-specific, > > > > like "Do you support XMLHttp"? I'd be very happy to see > > > > those sorts of things made public. > > > > > > Wouldn't this mean that the developer would have some knowledge of how > > > PPR is implemented? > > > > > > It seems from the developer's perspective it doesn't matter HOW the > > > page is partially updated, as long as it is. Assuming we get PPR > > > working on Windows Mobile 5.0, then PPR will be implemented using > > > iframes on most devices and XMLHttp on Windows Mobile 5.0. > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better for the app developer to be able to query if PPR > > > is supported instead of having to check if iframes or XMLHttp are > > > supported and assuming that the ability of the browser to support > > > these means that ADF supports PPR on them? > > > > > > Take care, > > > > > > Joey > > > > > > > > > > > -- Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > On 8/7/06, Joseph Rozier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Currently whether or not a particular agent supports Partial Page > > > > > Rendering (PPR) is specified by the "-adfinternal-partialRendering" > > > > > capability in the Agent. > > > > > > > > > > Because it is prefaced with "-adfinternal-" it is not public and > > > > > developers should not rely on it. > > > > > > > > > > Should we expose whether or not an agent supports PPR instead of > > > > > making it internal? > > > > > > > > > > In the past, a developer did not have much need to check whether or > > > > > not PPR was supported. It was generally assumed that a desktop can > > > > > support PPR and a PDA can't. > > > > > > > > > > We're going to look into supporting PPR using XMLHTTP on IE Mobile > > > > > 5.0. If that works, then some PDA's will support PPR, and others will > > > > > not. > > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Joey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
