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

Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Telcon 25 March 2008

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:29:57 -0000
Message-ID: <EFFE16B1340E654082DCD17D16429533ABA8D0@E03MVA3-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>

are now available:


and copied below:

                                                             - DRAFT -

                                  XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference

25 Mar 2008


   See also: IRC log


          Jon Calladine (BT)
          George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
          Paul Downey (BT)
          Yves Lafon (W3C)




     * Topics
         1. Admistrivia
         2. Publication
         3. blockDefault
         4. NonIdentifierName
         5. Detection Service
         6. Last Call
     * Summary of Action Items


   minutes from 18th approved


   gcowe: we shouldn't have directories with "edcopy" in the URI

   pauld: we'll take a snapshot of the collection and testsuite report and publish when we go to the Director for PR
   ... believe I have completed the editing for Last Call

   yves: we need to highlight moving directly to PR in the status section

   pauld: done!


   jonc: so what about "Block Default"? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2008Mar/0015.html

   jonc: it's an innocuous default pattern

   pauld: we have a statement in the status section about not introducing new elements and attributes
   ... have you tested them? "./@blockDefault and not(./@blockDefault)" looks strange

   gcowe: happy with the first option, seems an unusual thing to do

   pauld: there is precedence, e.g nillable

   jonc: and we have others globalComplexTypeBlock and globalElementBlock

   pauld: this seems better ./xs:element[@block=""]/(@block)

   gcowe: blockDefault and finalDefault have been skipped on all of the tools

   pauld: can we move these to advanced?

   gcowe: we don't have much evidence

   jonc: doesn't seem dangerous, but without testing ..

   gcowe: we don't use it, and my guess is if we test this it'll be advanced

   RESOLUTION: move GlobalComplexTypeBlock, GlobalElementFinal, GlobalElementBlock to advanced


   pauld: George points out that NonIdentifierPattern is still basic
   ... document here: http://localhost/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/basic/basic.html

   gcowe: we're hitting this due to names longer than 32

   pauld: we discussed this under ISSUE-10

   gcowe: we don't have very good examples in this area

   pauld: we should add some more tests
   ... we could split the pattern to be "symbolic name" and "long symbolic name"

   <gcowe> ISSUE 10 discussed in this thread

   <gcowe> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Sep/0002.html

   gcowe: 31 is the magic number

   pauld: worried, because we're sure non-ASCII names is an issue, but the length?
   ... let's create some examples

   gcowe: worried by the number of examples in this area

   pauld: we could create a little test suite for this alone

   gcowe: we've tried long names in C# and Java without issues, but obviously C might ..

   pauld: OK we'll work on this

Detection Service

   gcowe: thinking about adding highlighting, also been thinking about rerunning test suite

Last Call

   pauld: we're mostly done

   yves: links to Test Suite and Collection?

   pauld: will do so


   pauld: pickup in two weeks
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 17:30:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:58:13 UTC