RE: Recap and action items

The complete list of requirements can be found at
http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/evaluation/sysreq/default.asp.

There is a 120-day evaluation version available for download at this
location.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Brady [mailto:mbrady@nist.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 4:16 AM
To: Jason Brittsan; Dimitris Dimitriadis; www-dom-ts@w3.org
Subject: Re: Recap and action items

Hi Jason,

What are the requirements for running SharePoint?  We may be able to
host
it --
we have an NT box outside of our firewall.

--Mary

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Brittsan" <jasonbri@microsoft.com>
To: "Dimitris Dimitriadis" <dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se>;
<www-dom-ts@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: RE: Recap and action items


> Dimitris,
>
> I've spoken to many people in the Internet Explorer test group about
> hosting a SharePoint Portal Server.  Currently, we don't have the
> resources to host an external server.  However, we can provide you
with
> a copy of SharePoint, if you are interested.
>
> Please let us know if we can help in searching for other solutions.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason Brittsan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dimitris Dimitriadis [mailto:dimitris.dimitriadis@improve.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2001 11:52 AM
> To: www-dom-ts@w3.org
> Subject: Recap and action items
>
> Back again after a national holiday
>
> 1. How far are we from finalizing the shema? We took the decision to
> move
> against a unified framework but seem to still have som unresolved
> issues.
> Can we deal with theses on the list or should I schedule another
telcon?
> [schema-specific comments below]
>
> 2. Given that we do indeed finalize this fairly soon, how long will it
> take
> us to translate the existing tests? Mary?
>
> 3. We have Fred who's volounteered to write the documentation together
> with
> me. I look forward to start doing this once we've finalized the
schema.
>
> 4. NIST have agreed to provide us with the Java XSLT, so we need
another
> one
> for ECMA (those two will be the two that come along with the W3C DOM
TS)
> and
> any other XSLT provided. We already have Python (Fred).
>
> 5. We need to look into the resolution/status options for the
submitted
> tests, eg. by adding a pending option while a test is being
investigated
> by
> the DOM WG. Also we should decide on whether we submit through a
mailig
> list
> or SF.
>
>
> [schema-specific]
> 1. We still haven't decided on whether to use roundtripping to the
> schema or
> not during the transform. I personally prefer not doing this, and
> putting
> any necessary information in the test description file, especially for
> information that is present in the DOM Spec.
>
> I personally think we should use as much information from the spec as
> possible, and not require that roundtripping be made, either to our
DOM
> TS
> schema, or to the DOM spec, during transformation. Following this
> argument,
> we would also have to explicitly declare return types, as was done a
few
> iterations ago.
>
> ---
>
> 2. We also need to decide on parameters (cut from one of Curt's
mails):
> I've had a change of heart on parameters.  In my manual schema,
> parameters that could be null were optional.  However that information
> is
> not
> in the xml source for the DOM spec and I don't think we want to
> introduce
> any supplimentary information.  So if the parameter is required, how
do
> you specify that it is null.  One option would be to make allow "null"
> as
> a special value in the argument.  Unfortunately, that could seriously
> complicate the code generation for C++.  It is a little more awkward
> in the test, but it could greatly simplify the C++ code generation, if
> null parameters are passed by passing in declared but uninitialized
> variables, such as:
>
> ---
>
> One way is, as I see it, to go for required + "null". Making C++
> generation
> is perhaps the price we have to pay for being able to generate most
> other
> bindings, except if there is a simpler, fits-all, solution. In any
case,
> Java and ECMA would have higher priority, as they are the official DOM
> bindings (as in the specs)
>
> 3. Categories/Groups on the SF pages: look good, we only need to add a
> few
> categories as per the DOM TS Process document: submitted, received,
> reviewed
> and stable, inappropriate
>
>
> [old action items, see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-dom-ts/2001May/0137.html]
> 1. Supply the schema with the construct parts (Curt/Mary/Dimitris)
> [being
> looked into, we still have some issues to resolve]
> 2. Write the XSL for generating the Schema from the DOM XML
> specifications
> (Curt has alreaddy done this, needs final polishing) [still awaits
> comments
> and the decision on what to put in from the DOM spec]
> 5. Rewrite styelsheets for code generation (Java and ECMA primarily,
> others
> welcome) (NIST for the Java one, ECMA open) [will be written as soon
as
> the
> schema is finalized]
> 6. Work on the details for test suite packaging (Curt, Dimitris?)
[still
> needs discussion]
> 7. Produce documentation (faq, help documentation, test production
> descriptions) (Dimitris) [plus Fred]
> 8. Produce a test matrix (Mary/Dimitris) [pending]
> 9. Produce a list of semantic requirements (Mary, is connected to the
> test
> matrix) [pending]
>
>
> [done action items]
> 3. Start work on architecture for submitting/editing/approving tests
> (All,
> Curt to submit a proposal) [done, as far as I can see, we just need to
> clarify on whether we will also use a mailing list]
> 4. Look into an issue tracking system (there is no such colution
within
> the
> W3C) (Philippe/Jason) [done]
>
> Have I forgotten anything?
>
> Nearly there...
>
> /Dimitris
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2001 12:33:44 UTC