- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:49:41 +0100
- To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
Minutes from last week's F2F are now available here: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/8/03-databinding-minutes.html and copied below for trackbot's searching - DRAFT - Databinding WG F2F 3 Aug 2007 Agenda See also: IRC log Attendees Present Jon Calladine (BT) George Cowe (Origo Services Limited) Paul Downey (BT) Yves Lafon (W3C) Regrets Chair pauld Scribe pauld Contents * Topics 1. Administrivia 2. c-erh-1 : typo "casue" 3. lc-i18n-1 : BOM link to Unicode FAQ 4. lc-i18n-2 : Working with Time Zones 5. c-i18n-3: language type to reference BCP47 6. lc-drkm-1: XPath 2.0 and node-set 7. lc-Microsoft-3: Nested Sequences and sequences other than minOccurs=maxOccurs=1 8. lc-Microsoft-2: Element References 9. lc-Microsoft-5: maxOccurs=finite 10. lc-Microsoft-7: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 ... 11. lc-Microsoft-8: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 in the same inheritance chain 12. Review of Testing Report * Summary of Action Items __________________________________________________________________ Administrivia minutes from the 12/6 and 10/7 approved [] pauld: We spent the past couple of days working on the test report, deploying the patterns detection service and building a collection of patterns detected in schemas and WSDLs found "in the wild". pauld: ok, so we've added some minOccurs patterns, been resurrecting our report (re-run later!) ... yves has a hard-stop at 1:45, jon at 14:45 ... so we have last call issues to answer, a databinding report to review, and a list of schemas in the wild to look at ... not being doing a great job of tracking LC issues thanks to issues with eXit ... let's look at the mail archive, the minutes from Nice and make sure we've not lost any http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/F2F-databinding-minutes.html http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/7/2/lc-issues/issues.html pauld: this is going to be painful, but let's make sure we have minuted RESOLUTIONS for all of them c-erh-1 : typo "casue" we haven't done the polite thing and replied to the commenter RESOLUTION: accepted and closed c-erh-1 lc-i18n-1 : BOM link to Unicode FAQ RESOLUTION: accepted and closed lc-i18n-1 lc-i18n-2 : Working with Time Zones RESOLUTION: accepted and closed lc-i18n-2 c-i18n-3: language type to reference BCP47 RESOLUTION: accepted and closed c-i18n-3 lc-drkm-1: XPath 2.0 and node-set RESOLUTION: accepted and closed lc-drkm-1 lc-Microsoft-3: Nested Sequences and sequences other than minOccurs=maxOccurs=1 pauld: after testing, Microsoft are right, sequence with a cardinality not of 1 isn't well implemented <scribe> ACTION: pdowney to move sequence patterns with minOccurs or maxOccurs !=1 to Advanced [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/03-databinding-minutes.html#action01] <trackbot> Created ACTION-125 - Move sequence patterns with minOccurs or maxOccurs !=1 to Advanced [on Paul Downey - due 2007-08-10]. RESOLUTION: accepted and closed lc-Microsoft-3 as Advanced patterns lc-Microsoft-2: Element References looking at our test report http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/ElementReference/ is well supported and http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/ElementReferenceUnq ualified is already "Advanced" gcowe: I agree with Microsoft pauld: being cautious I'd want to remove it too pauld: we discussed this in Nice and decided to at least add another pattern to ensure the reference was within the same schema document jonc: doesn't everyone use this pattern? pauld: um, not sure. I think for document/literal wrapped some tools generate this? ... might be nice if our collection report listed patterns used in a roll-up report gcowe: they asked to remove these patterns? pauld: moved to advanced is what I think they meant ... I'm happy to move it to advanced based on what's used in the wild jonc: we use it in our schemas/wsdls pauld: internal ones? jonc: I'll show you .. pauld: so the BT "header" is an element referenced in another namespace and this works well with tools? jonc: yes! pauld: OK so we haven't seen evidence this doesn't work RESOLUTION: reject lc-Microsoft-2 rejected based on testing lc-Microsoft-5: maxOccurs=finite <gcowe> http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/gdsc/schemaHtml/AddressTypes-v1-4-xsd-UKPosta lAddressStructure.htm demonstrates finite maxoccurs <gcowe> http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/schemasstandards/schemalibrary.asp pauld: will cover these in our collection: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/collection/ OK, so people use them, but from our report they don't work well with tools RESOLUTION: accepted lc-Microsoft-5 finite maxOccurs patterns are Advanced lc-Microsoft-7: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 ... which examples exhibit this? http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/BareVector/ actually works fine they say: "We suggest to recommend wrapped collection pattern as preferred" we can accept that .. I guess .. and "exclude bare array pattern" which based on testing and how widely spread the pattern is we reject <scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add advice that BareVector doesn't allow representation of null as opposed to empty arrays [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/03-databinding-minutes.html#action02] <trackbot> Created ACTION-126 - Add advice that BareVector doesn\'t allow representation of null as opposed to empty arrays [on Paul Downey - due 2007-08-10]. RESOLUTION: accepted lc-Microsoft-7 in part <gcowe> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/examples/6/09/ComplexTypeSequence Extension/ example doesn't exhibit their issue pauld: so we haven't tested it? ... this pattern is very common with inheritence in OO ... we could add a pattern to Advanced to capture their issue? ... I don't think we need to given sequence with maxOccurs/minOccurs != 1 is now Advanced so their issue is covered, but the pattern stays lc-Microsoft-8: Mixing elements maxOccurs=1 and maxOccurs>1 in the same inheritance chain RESOLUTION: rejected lc-Microsoft-8 Review of Testing Report http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/all.html AnyURIElement seems problematic with ZSI - they uriescape the URI seems like the user of that tool would work around that issue, we use anyURI a *lot* and we use ZSI ;-) AttributeFixed failed in SOAP4R, it's an edge case - advanced? pauld: no objections to making AttributeFixed "advanced" AttributeOptional is Advanced AttributeReference is definitely Advanced! AtributeRequired fails in IBM and SOAP4R AttributeTypeReference fails in Axis, Axis2 and others gcowe: some of these are failing on boolean comparison yves: will review the comparison <gcowe> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_ibm_rad_java _7.0.html#AttributeRequired01 should be marked as boolean <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_axis_java_1. 4.html#AttributeElementNameClash01 so SOAP4R doesn't handle multiple attributes! and we don't have specific tests for that <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_axis2_java_1 .1.1.html#BooleanElement04 s/BooleanAttribute fails BooleanElement works, go figure!// AttributeOptional is expressing the default! let's keep that basic! Base64BinaryAttribute is advanced <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_gsoap2_2.7.9 f_c.html#AttributeReference01 pauld: any examples based on a complete schema haven't been tested, including blockDefault, but these are mostly harmless <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_spring_java_ 1.0m3_castor_1.1.html#BooleanAttribute01 I raised a lc issue on Date and Time, but DateTime looks problematic jonc: can't remove that pauld: OK, so all dates, times and not datetime are advanced gcowe: IBM tool seems to have a lot of issues in this area! Decimal is advanced ENTITY and ENTITIES are advanced, they barf and use DTDs Axis 1.4 is behaving like a SOAP encoded toolkit, shockingly bad: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_axis_java_1. 4.html#ElementMaxOccursUnbounded02 Float is advanced! that's pretty fundamental used by lots of schema generation tools ID and IDREF don't work ID with ZSI Integer is Advanced and NonPositive - we don't have good test cases for <Yves> need to add test for overflow detection thanks Yves, see you next time! Language fails in ZSI, not widespreadly used - Advanced NMTOKEN/NMTOKENS is advanced TypeSubstitutionUsingXsiType is Advanced all the unsigned types are advanced jonc: NillableOptional is definitely Advanced pauld: agreed, with strong feeling! we discussed this to death in ISSUE-7 jonc: nillable is something people want pauld: i don't want it ;-) gSOAP fails with nillable we could argue that the echo test isn't fair to gSOAP here: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/report/report_gsoap2_2.7.9 f_c.html#NillableElement01 OK, let's keep Nillable OK, let's regenerate the patterns, examples and reports .. pauld: Thanks to George and Origo for hosting, once again! ADJOURNED Summary of Action Items [NEW] ACTION: pdowney to add advice that BareVector doesn't allow representation of null as opposed to empty arrays [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/03-databinding-minutes.html#action02] [NEW] ACTION: pdowney to move sequence patterns with minOccurs or maxOccurs !=1 to Advanced [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/08/03-databinding-minutes.html#action01] [End of minutes] __________________________________________________________________
Received on Wednesday, 8 August 2007 14:55:24 UTC