Thread Subject: Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform"

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Aug 29 2007 11:35 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Sorry Peter,

I didn't say it WAS a platform. Just that it was providing some platform
services or serving as a platform. (see your Note 3).


Personally I think labeling things as platform or application is the wrong
approach. I think we should say

Software serving as a platform (or providing platform services to other
software) should.....

And

Software with user interface should....


Or some such.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 3:03 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> definition of a"platform"
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> I understand what you are saying. I do not agree with it. A
> provided set of services that can only partially isolate
> things above it cannot ever be a platform. That is distinct
> from a set of services that are sufficient for full isolation
> but which also include an escape hatch.
>
> E.g. if my set of software services provides a way to display
> windows but not text (you need to put your own pixels there),
> then I haven't provided everything needed and I'm not really
> a platform. I'm just a software library - and an incomplete
> one at that. To take your definition, we would then be
> placing a burden on virtually any software toolkit or
> software library. Heck, the standard C library containing
> disk and network i/o functions "partially isolates" you from
> the "underlying hardware layer" (namely the disk & network
> firmware). But that isn't a platform.
>
> I recognize that sometimes a platform like a browser is a
> platform for HTML, but only a set of software services for a
> browser plugin like Flash or Java applets. But here the word
> "partially" isn't helpful. It is a platform to some things,
> and a library to others.
>
>
> Perhaps we might move this discussion forward if you could
> give concrete examples of things you feel are platforms that
> aren't covered by language that doesn't include "partially".
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > Sorry
> > I was just saying that I edited the wrong one. But I didn't have a
> > chance to re-edit the right one.
> >
> > Just put " partially or fully " in the provision
> >
> >
> >
> >>> collection of software components that runs on an underlying
> >>> software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software
> >>> services to applications which allows them to be
> PARITALLY OR FULLY
> >>>
> > isolated from the
> >
> >>> underlying software or hardware layer.
> >>>
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Peter Korn
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:29 AM
> >> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> >> definition of a"platform"
> >>
> >> Gregg,
> >>
> >> I did a character comparison between your text below, and
> my original
> >> from August 20th (see it in the archives - it is the
> second "Platform
> >> software" definition in:
> >> http://teitac.org/mailarchives/mail_message.php?id=6471&listid
> >> =3). The only difference I found were in space characters
> and where
> >> the line breaks were.
> >>
> >> Did you have any edits to this text that you wanted to
> >> discuss/propose?
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Peter Korn
> >> Accessibility Architect,
> >> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >>> You are indeed correct. I did edit the wrong one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Here are edits applied on your latest.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Platform software*:
> >>> collection of software components that runs on an underlying
> >>> software or hardware layer, and that provides a set of software
> >>> services to applications which allows them to be
> isolated from the
> >>> underlying software or hardware layer.
> >>>
> >>> * Note 1: For our purposes, it is those software
> >>> components/services
> >>> provided to applications for the creation or
> >>>
> >> manipulation of
> >>
> >>> user
> >>> interfaces and user input - that impact
> >>>
> >> accessibility - which
> >>
> >>> are
> >>> of concern for whether something is a platform or not. An
> >>> application offering a compute service, such as a 3d
> >>>
> >> rendering
> >>
> >>> engine where a requesting application isn't using
> >>>
> >> the software
> >>
> >>> components/services to create a user interface and
> >>>
> >> interact with
> >>
> >>> the user, should not be considered a "platform".
> >>> * Note 2: If applications typically connect directly to the
> >>> underlying layer, rather than relying solely on
> the platform
> >>> software components and services, then it is
> likely that the
> >>> software components in the middle are not acting as a
> >>> "platform".
> >>> For example, a program which hosts plug-in's is not
> >>>
> >> a platform
> >>
> >>> if
> >>> the plug-in can directly access the underlying layer.
> >>> * Note 3: A particular software component may play the
> >>>
> >> role of a
> >>
> >>> platform in some situations and not in others.
> Platforms can
> >>> include such things as Internet browsers,
> operating systems,
> >>> plug-ins to internet browsers or other software
> >>>
> >> applications,
> >>
> >>> and
> >>> under some situations, byte-code interpreted virtual
> >>> environments,
> >>> and other "programming within another programming"
> >>>
> >> environments.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Gregg
> >>> -- ------------------------------
> >>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>>> Peter Korn
> >>>> Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 9:55 PM
> >>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Concerns about our current
> >>>> definition of a"platform"
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg,
> >>>>
> >>>> You provided edits to the version in the 17Aug draft, not to the
> >>>> proposal I put forth. Was that your intention? The key
> for me is
> >>>> what the platform provides that defines it as a platform
> >>>>
> >> (with what
> >>
> >>>> the bulk of applications use cementing that definition or
> >>>>
> >> countering
> >>
> >>>> it). With such a definition, we can then place requirements on
> >>>> anything that is a platform (by that definition).
> >>>>
> >>>> Going into "partially", and "acting as", and "for those
> >>>>
> >> aspects of an
> >>
> >>>> application" complicates matters significantly.
> >>>> And I don't see what we gain by doing that. If something
> >>>>
> >> is trying
> >>
> >>>> to be a platform, then it should obey the platform rules.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Peter Korn
> >>>> Accessibility Architect,
> >>>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Concerns about our current definition of a"platform""