PREFACE: I'm slowly catching back up on this thread (among other community projects) ...
Fabian Thorns wrote in response to: > Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> As far as the choice of topics is concerned, I would personally welcome >> something that asks for awareness of the common security issues surrounding >> web applications, and also something that mentions architectural patterns >> such >> as single-page applications, which are IMHO much more important from a >> practical POV than, e.g., WebAssembly (of all things). There doesn't seem to >> be a mention of REST, either. > > Adding awareness of single-page applications and RESTful APIs is definitely > worth some more thoughts. What do others think? RESTful API concepts are definitely warranted. Even non-web developers, like system engineers and even senior system administrators, end up dealing with XMLRPC, SOAP and RESTful APIs. But I'll leave it to others to decide if that's in-scope for an 'Essentials' exam. Fabian Thorns wrote in response to: > Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> then IMHO the CSS content stipulated (especially by objectives 033.2 and >> 033.4) is over the top – it would take a lot of time to teach compared to >> most >> of the rest of the material. Instead it might be more practical to cover the >> essentials of a popular free CSS framework such as Bootstrap. > > We tried to avoid frameworks as much as possible since it is complicated to > pick > the "right" framework and frameworks tend to be changing more than the actual > base standards. That's why we tried to focus on core CSS features. One of my core competencies, and by that I mean at least a weekly, tertiary duty, is _not_ web development. However, we're starting to see an age where web development is a reality for infrastructure engineers and even sysadmins. I.e., like with RESTful APIs, CSS is being used in even just documentation. E.g., I use CSS with not only DocBook XML and, indirectly, AsciiDoc (once converted to DocBook XML), but even just simple Markdown. But that's really not web development, so I really am not someone to say how much or little CSS should be included. At the same time, no matter what the framework, it's really difficult to avoid CSS. Fabian Thorns wrote in response to: > Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> Based on the same rationale I would probably lose the <video> and <audio> >> parts of 032.3 – they don't add a lot conceptually, tend to bog one down with >> deciding what codecs one should support, and frankly don't make sense unless >> the “sample app” at the end includes video or audio content (which, having >> personally written web applications that deal with video and audio, I would >> consider to be incompatible with the adjective “simple”). If that makes the >> “embedded resource” portion too light, then <img srcset="…"> might be more >> useful to pad the objective, especially with a view to responsive design. Or >> one could talk about SVG a bit. > > Good point, more opinions on this? Introduce the concept of a codec and move on, especially that even HTML5 standards still rely on codecs. I thin it's important to introduce the concept. Fabian Thorns wrote in response to: > Anselm Lingnau wrote: >> but if I do >> write a manual it'll probably have an extra chapter on Django just so people >> get to see how this is done properly ;^) > > What about Laravel? Spring? Rails? I'm sure we don't want to open that can > of worms, and you (along with Ingo and Jeroenn) got the benefit of introducing > candidates to the overall principle of server-side development without > introducing another language. JavaScript is set as *the* frontend development > language, adding another programming language would certainly be beyond > an Essentials exam. I think this is a very, very key point of discussion. I think it's _great_ that people producing their own, non-LPI content can introduce concepts and even full sidebars and total tangents on various frameworks, even a _'survey.'_ And I think the LPI Essentials _should_ even _'seed'_ the idea that there are many server-side frameworks too. But also that's where the non-LPI content comes in ... what's in them can be a _superset_ of LPI objectives, especially at the 'Essentials' level. Which means they don't have to be listed in LPI Objectives, just their _'essential'_ introduction of the _'technology/concept,'_ not the actual _'framework'_ options themselves. Web frameworks are a dime-a-dozen and grow-shrink in popularity well inside the revision lifecycle of LPI exams. So we'd be foolish to even try to cover the popular ones, so we should focus on the lowest common denominator of them all. Just my personal viewpoints as a peer professional and speaking in no other capacity. - bjs -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] https://list.lpi.org/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
