Comments (3)
All in all I think referring to "the session" is a little ambiguous, I know that Session is defined in the definitions.
I understand your point, but do you have a recommendation of how to make it less ambiguous? IMO there isn't much ambiguous about a term that is defined in a set of definitions. It is pretty unreasonable for them to make a leap from the word "session" which is defined in a set of terms in a specification to have it mean something other than that definition. Them requiring anything other than that the request uses the POST method and the full URL itself is beyond the scope of the spec and very likely to break implementations as you've pointed out.
I'd go much further than requiring cookie based authentication as being "annoying", it will just continue to break implementations going forward and although I suppose it isn't in technical violation of the spec, it certainly is in violation of the intent of the spec as you've pointed out.
I think since we've just seen a case in the wild of people ignoring the definition...
In general the WG has mostly disagreed with this stance historically, as people ignoring definitions can't generally be satisfied regardless of brevity.
(Note I'm all for clarifications, especially outside of actual "requirements", I just don't know what that clarity looks like in this case.)
from cmi-5_spec_current.
Hi @brianjmiller, Thanks for the reply,
I understand your point, but do you have a recommendation of how to make it less ambiguous? IMO there isn't much ambiguous about a term that is defined in a set of definitions. It is pretty unreasonable for them to make a leap from the word "session" which is defined in a set of terms in a specification to have it mean something other than that definition.
I'm not insistent on this at all, (and you say the working group doesn't seem keen on it) but I think the AU's session
is much clearer. It disambiguates the term from the MANY technical meanings in order to make any implementor question themselves, and hopefully read definitions as they should.
Personally I'd like to be surprised by an unknown/scoped term which makes me consult the documentation and have to look it up or ask someone like you (thanks for the help so far).
although I suppose it isn't in technical violation of the spec, it certainly is in violation of the intent of the spec as you've pointed out.
Well put, how the specification could solve intent disputes is beyond me! It's hard enough to deal with a closed source vendor who seems willing to argue the spec on this one.. I might refer them to the definition section on session since they argued that it's their LMS session.
If anyone from the working group could somehow make some sort of clarification around the "purity" of the fetch process that would be great. By purity I mean that it shouldn't be stateful from the AU's prospective. The LMS should be encoding state in the fetch URL not via the browser.
from cmi-5_spec_current.
closed per Feb 9th meeting
from cmi-5_spec_current.
Related Issues (20)
- “Waived” statement by the LMS (Spec Defect Correction) HOT 2
- Progress extension in statements that do not use the AU activity id HOT 12
- Question about authentication security HOT 3
- cmi5 Adopter HOT 4
- cmi5 Adopter HOT 1
- example on overview page missing closing bracket on actor HOT 1
- Capitalization of "MAY" HOT 1
- Capitalization and quoting of concepts is not done consistently throughout the cmi5 Profile Specification document HOT 2
- cmi5 Adopter
- update Section 1.2 adding <code></code> tag html markup in addition to md backticks HOT 2
- 'Section' should be capitalized when it is a reference to a specific section HOT 1
- Punctuation and grammatical edits for text in table fields “Description”, “LMS Usage”, and “Value Space” HOT 3
- Remove IFI from Section 9.2 Actor HOT 2
- References to ‘xAPI Specification’ in Sections 8.1.2, 8.2.2 and 8.3 are awkward and inconsistent. HOT 1
- In Section 9.6.3.3 launchMode Description field could be made more succinct and accurate HOT 1
- References in one section to another section of this standard are not consistent HOT 1
- Standardized approach to "expected" AU duration HOT 2
- cmi5 Adopter
- cmi5 Adopter
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from cmi-5_spec_current.