W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xsd-databinding-comments@w3.org > July 2008

RE: Databinding comments

From: Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:54:39 -0700
To: <paul.downey@bt.com>, <public-xsd-databinding-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000301c8eccb$b09f5f50$11de1df0$@com>

Yes, I'm satisfied.  Thanks for the response!

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: paul.downey@bt.com [mailto:paul.downey@bt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 3:29 PM
> To: jonathan@wso2.com; public-xsd-databinding-comments@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Databinding comments
> 
> Dear Jonathan,
> 
> Please accept my sincire applogies for taking so long to
> reply to your comments you may recall making long, long ago [1].
> 
> > 1)      It's not clear to me why the XPath assertions are so
> complicated.
> > For instance, the following pattern:
> >    .[@targetNamespace]/ (., @targetNamespace)
> > returns a non-empty node-set (an xs:schema element and a
> > targetNamespace attribute) on a pattern-conforming schema.
> > However, a simpler pattern will give us a similarly non-empty node-
> set:
> >    @targetNamespace
> > or if you really think this helps set the context (I don't), it's
> synonym:
> >    ./@targetNamespace
> > IMO this is simpler to read is that it is familiar to XPath 1.0
> users, not
> > just those who dive into the (distressingly complex) XPath 2.0 spec.
> There
> > seems to be additional information encoded in the XPath 2.0 form, but
> it's
> > not clear what it's used for, if anything, especially since this
> style
> > doesn't appear in all patterns.
> 
> The working group sympathised with your point of view, the XPaths are
> complex
> but we elected to endeavor to make them consistent, each pattern in two
> parts,
> first explicitly locating a node, then selecting the nodes to be
> matched, rather
> than making the simplest patterns simpler as you suggest:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-
> minutes.html#item09
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html#lc-
> jmarsh-1
> 
> > 2)      Pattern 2.1.4 SchemaVersion.  How does the version attribute
> help
> > with databinding?  Seems like encouraging it's appearance (while not
> a bad
> > idea) is orthogonal to the goal of mapping to data structures.  Same
> can be
> > said of 2.2.1 DocumentationElement, probably others as well.  This
> seems to
> > stray into general purpose schema subset territory.
> 
> It does stray into general purpose schema sub-setting, but the approach
> taken for Basic is to allow all aspects of schema, unless they are
> shown
> not to work with state of the art implementations. Our testing revealed
> version as having no impact, and so is "Basic", along with similar
> schema
> attributes ignored by implementations.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-
> minutes.html#item10
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html#lc-
> jmarsh-2
> 
> > 3)      Pattern 2.2.1 DocumentationElement.  Listing <xs:annotation>
> twice
> > (in context and out) looks like a bug in the example generation code
> ;-).
> 
> We believe we've resolved this issue. Thanks for noticing!
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-
> minutes.html#item11
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html#lc-
> jmarsh-3
> 
> > 4)      The patterns are written in terms of "a document exhibits a
> pattern
> > when .".  An effect of this is that a pattern may return a node-set
> even
> > when parts of the document don't exhibit the pattern, or exhibit the
> > opposite of the pattern.  For instance 2.3.3 NotMixed says a document
> > exhibits a pattern when there is at least one instance of
> @mixed="false",
> > but the information a user is most likely to want is whether the
> schema
> > exhibits any undesirable patterns, such as the (likely problematic)
> > @mixed="true".  In essence, the granularity implied with the
> statement "An
> > [XML 1.0] document exhibits the NotMixed pattern" doesn't seem to be
> > terrible useful, and contrary to the name, does not ensure a schema
> doesn't
> > allow mixed content.  It might be as simple as changing the
> expression to
> > something like @mixed!='true', or there might be a larger problem
> with the
> > granularity here.
> 
> We allow explicitly asserting the default value for attributes such as
> "mixed" for
> similar reasons as to why we allow the "version" attribute:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-
> minutes.html#item12
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html#lc-
> jmarsh-4
> 
> > 5) Appendix C why is R2800 not grouped with R2112?  They seem to be
> > introduced the same way.
> 
> Reading the specification with fresh eyes, I understand the confusion,
> but the rationale
> behind the grouping, which we've maintained is  R2112 is something
> allowed by the
> Basic patterns document, but explicitly disallowed by the WS-I BP,
> whereas R2800 is a case where the WS-I BP is less constrained than the
> Basic patterns
> document:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-
> minutes.html#item13
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html#lc-
> jmarsh-5
> 
> We hope you are agreeable with the Working Group's processing of your
> comments.
> 
> Yours,
> Paul, On behalf of the W3C XML Schema Patterns
> for Databinding Working Group
> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-
> comments/2007Jan/0000.html
Received on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 13:55:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 July 2008 13:55:35 GMT