[Building Sakai] Portal NEO Prefix

[Adams, David]

Chuck,
You have misinterpreted my comments repeatedly. You're arguing with something no one is saying. But that's a good method for wearing people down who are suggesting something you don't want to happen.

Chuck Severance wrote:
> Your argument seems to be based on "Tool developers did not know about these
> documents, they did not read these documents, they did not comply with documents,
> they made up their own convention based on doing view source of compliant tools,
> and came up with something that kind of worked for a while, and now that enough
> time has passed we are unwilling to comply with the specs even though it is likely a
> relatively straightforward change and will enhance all wicket tools and actually
> remove code fro wicket tools that replicates portal functionality in a brittle manner".

Your summary of my argument is 100% wrong. It is so wrong I question whether you read my emails at all. I agree the tools should be fixed. I pointed out a possible reason that they failed to follow the spec--which is that the spec is buried, hard to read, incomplete for most purposes, and appears to be out of date. Pointing that out was not to defend not following the spec.

You appear to be saying that no matter how broken the portal is for skin developers and admins, that's okay, and it's even a bonus if it also breaks tools that are out of spec. Myself, I favor improving the clarity of the property settings over punishing tools that are out of spec.

> If you want to separate this conversation into (a) we agree that we will fix the
> out-of-spec-tools and then separately (b) what is the best way for the portal to
> function - that is a more interesting conversation.

(b) is the only conversation we're trying to have. You're the only one who's talking about (a). In fact, *I'm* the one who pointed out the problems with the tools not following the spec and trying to duplicate the portal's logic.

> But as long as you keep saying "change the portal to let tools
> remain out of spec" - that is a non-starter.

I never said this. No one is arguing for this. Please, please, try to have the same conversation everyone else is having.

-dave