[This message was posted by Scott Atwell of American Century Investments <[email protected]> to the "Algorithmic Trading" discussion forum at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/31. You can reply to it on-line at http://fixprotocol.org/discuss/read/cb5c6844 - PLEASE DO NOT REPLY BY MAIL.]
> Conceptually, FIXatdl makes a lot of sense, but considering the pushback with > respect to dictating the actual presentation of the algorithm parameters (in > an OMS/EMS application), does it make sense to just not worry about any of it > in the first place? I would classify collapsible panels as an 'advanced feature', and making them collapse right-to-left vs. bottom-to-top as an even more advanced feature (eg there may also be fewer UI environments that even support the feature). I believe it is warned/noted in the spec that some of the more advanced features may be 'supported' in a more vanilla fashion. Certainly, it is understood that one may only leverage the parameter section and not fully support the visual section. Frankly, we'd get much greater utility and benefit from having the ability to express a simple 'grid' (# rows, # columns) than horizontally collapsing panels. I think the debate over the more advanced areas of a standardized UI representation should not cloud the real-world advantages that, at least American Century can attest to, FIXatdl's full UI support provides. [You can unsubscribe from this discussion group by sending a message to mailto:[email protected]] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Financial Information eXchange" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fix-protocol?hl=en.
