Re: ISSUE-32: explain dynamic content better

I assume for dynamic content we're leaving out pages generated "on the
fly"?  This seems slightly confusing to me.  If a page is built on the
fly and served to me, I don't many people who would consider that
"static content" but, since it has a completion point, we're defining it
as such.

I suppose we can define it how every we like, but it seems a tad
confusing and counterintuitive.  It almost seems like three categories
might be needed.  Something like:

Static content - Content containing only markup that is identical for
every user.
"Foo" content - Content generated by the web server at the time of
request by the client.
"Bar" content - Content that continually changes based on client actions
and information after initial delivery by the web server.

Or something like that.

Just a thought.

Shawn

Mary Ellen Zurko wrote:
> 
> To help folks who still may not get it, would add to this proposal (a
> variant of) the last line of mine, making it:
> 
> "The rendering of a web page composed of only static content has a
> completion point, after which the rendered view remains constant until
> the user chooses to navigate to another web page. Dynamic content is
> anything that changes this interaction or is given additional access to
> user agent functions. Java and javascript are two current examples."
> 
>           Mez
> 
> Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
> Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect
> 
> 
> 
> *"Close, Tyler J." <tyler.close@hp.com>*
> Sent by: public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
> 
> 05/09/2007 08:39 PM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	<public-wsc-wg@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: ISSUE-32: explain dynamic content better
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The text proposed by ISSUE-32 is:
> Dynamic content is whatever the user aagent treats as code, as opposed to
> data. Java and javascript are the two cannonical examples.
> The difference between code and data is a famously slippery distinction
> in computer science. I think we need some other way of distinguishing
> dynamic content. I believe the important distinction is the difference
> in authority between a static web page and a dynamic web page. For
> example, a static web page cannot: change the rendered view after
> loading has completed; read the system clock; schedule timeouts;
> navigate the browser to a specified URL; navigate backwards or forwards
> in the browser history; pop a dialog box; open a new browser window;
> close a browser window; etc. Some dynamic content has even greater
> authority; for example, an ActiveX control has full authority over the
> user's computer.
>  
> I suggest we clarify what we mean by dynamic content with:
>  
> "The rendering of a web page composed of only static content has a
> completion point, after which the rendered view remains constant until
> the user chooses to navigate to another web page. Dynamic content is
> anything that changes this interaction or is given additional access to
> user agent functions."
>  
> Tyler
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wsc-wg-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Mary Ellen Zurko*
> Sent:* Wednesday, May 09, 2007 4:39 PM*
> To:* public-wsc-wg@w3.org*
> Subject:* Re: ISSUE-32: explain dynamic content better
> 
> 
> I declare concensus. The editors will make the change (modulo the typo)
> and close the issue.
> 
>          Mez
> 
> Mary Ellen Zurko, STSM, IBM Lotus CTO Office       (t/l 333-6389)
> Lotus/WPLC Security Strategy and Patent Innovation Architect
> 
> 

-- 
shawn duffy - shawn.duffy@corp.aol.com
senior technical security engineer | aol it security
703.265.8273 | AIM: ShawnDuffy1
https://open-itsec.office.aol.com/
https://www.itsec.aol.com/

Received on Wednesday, 16 May 2007 12:10:52 UTC