RE: basic (v) advanced [was ISSUE-58: anonymous complexType]

Pete, All

FWIW I actually meant to place this in the Basic document, 
but the default option on the issue form put it in Advanced.

We have consensus that a pattern is "Basic" only if it is
well supported by current implementations - "well supported" 
being a value judgement by the Working group, but will likely
be "the set of toolkits available to, and of interest to, the
Working Group." Vendors who contribute to the WG are more likely
to make that grade.

We discussed at the F2F and once again on today's call what to
do should a Basic pattern later turn out not to be well supported, 
or an Advanced pattern better supported under ISSUE-61, and resolved 
to mark all Basic and Advanced patterns as being "at risk" of being
moved between the documents based upon practical testing during CR.

HTH
Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-xsd-databinding-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of 
> Pete Cordell
> Sent: 23 May 2006 14:00
> To: Databinding WG
> Subject: Re: ISSUE-58: anonymous complexType
> 
> 
> 
> Original Message From: "Databinding Issue Tracker" <dean+cgi@w3.org>
> 
> > We use the following pattern in our schemas:
> > 
> > <xs:element name="foo">
> >  <xs:complexType>
> >    <xs:sequence>
> >      <xs:element .../>
> >      <xs:element .../>
> >    </xs:sequence>
> >  <xs:complexType>
> > </xs:element>
> 
> I wonder whether this should be a basic pattern?
> 
> Pete.
> --
> =============================================
> Pete Cordell
> Tech-Know-Ware Ltd
>                          for XML to C++ data binding visit
>                          http://www.tech-know-ware.com/lmx
>                          (or http://www.xml2cpp.com)
> =============================================
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 16:16:37 UTC