- 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