- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:29:57 -0000
- To: <public-xsd-databinding@w3.org>
are now available:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/8/3/25-databinding-minutes.html
and copied below:
- DRAFT -
XML Schema Patterns for Databinding Working Group Teleconference
25 Mar 2008
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. Admistrivia
2. Publication
3. blockDefault
4. NonIdentifierName
5. Detection Service
6. Last Call
* Summary of Action Items
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Admistrivia
minutes from 18th approved
Publication
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!
blockDefault
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
NonIdentifierName
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
ADJOURNED
pauld: pickup in two weeks
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2008 17:30:48 UTC