See also: IRC log
gcowe: would like to change the Siebel/Origo comment in the minutes
pauld: we need to publish our reports - patterns detected in schemas in the wild and interoperbility of patterns with toolkits.
yves: been working with XMLUnit. It's not perfect, but may be good enough.
pauld: we need a rollup to compare individual toolkits,
need to fix log namespace for non-namespace schemas, but looks good!
... Plan is for Yves to work on the rollup, pauld will work on detecting patterns in the wild jon and george to battle with Java toolkits
... OK today we answer comments, rest of the meeting we work on the reports
Jonc: actually a typeo in "Advanced"
pauld: i seem to have fixed
... how do I work EXIT?
... Shoot me. Shoot me now!
RESOLUTION: close lc-erh-1 as accepted
pauld: do we have any tests for BOM?
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to write BOM examples for the testsuite [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-104 - Write BOM examples for the testsuite [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: they want us to link to http://www.unicode.org/unicode/faq/utf_bom.html#BOM
paul: informative reference?
pauld: any objections?
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add informative reference for BOM link to Unicode FAQ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-105 - Add informative reference for BOM link to Unicode FAQ [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
RESOLUTION: close lc-i18n-1 as accepted
pauld: want to link to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/
... looks like goodness
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-106 - Add reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-timezone-20051013/ [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
RESOLUTION: close lc-i18n-2 as accepted
reference comes from XML Schema, our spec is all boilerplate here
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add reference to BCP47 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-107 - Add reference to BCP47 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
RESOLUTION: close lc-i18n-3 as accepted
pauld: used node-set but that's
... Priscilla raised the same comment, and I trust both to be correct, however node-set is in common usage. Sequence implies order, but we don't care about order
... let's park this until Priscilla joins us
pauld: this pattern should really be Basic, is this a significant change?
gcowe: I use this pattern quite a bit
pauld: only way you can import a
schema and be BP compliant
... easy to write a constrained XPath for this commonly used pattern
any objections to adding this to Basic?
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add a Basic Pattern for BP compliant schema import [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action05]
RESOLUTION: close lc-psd-1 as accepted
pauld: sounds a little like "too many notes, your royal
.. it is a fair comment though, our XPaths are proforma, but gnarly.
.. Jonathan thinks XPath is complex, wonder how he'll like moving to the terminology as well
... I agree, in cases such as this we can simplify the expressions
.. @targetNamespace is not the same as .[@targetNamespace]/ (., @targetNamespace) since that returns two nodes
jonc: is he asking us not to use this style where not needed?
pauld: there are other XPaths which can be simplified
jonc: will review the XPaths to simplify
pauld: I quite like them all
being the same style, would some introduction text help?
... but for this pattern, it is necessary to match xs:schema and targetNamesapce because we don't allow xs:schema without a targetNamespace!
<scribe> ACTION: jcalladi to review XPaths for unnecessary nodes being matched [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action06]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-108 - Review XPaths for unnecessary nodes being matched [on Jonathan Calladine - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: will reject this comment for @targetNamespace, but accept the thrust which is to simplify the patterns where possible
RESOLUTION: close c-jmarsh-1 as rejected
pauld: how does it help with databinding?
jonc: assumption is we're encouraging it, we're just saying it's allowed
pauld: we allowed it because it's
mostly harmless, tools can ignore it
... can we flag patterns as being noise
gcowe: would we leave it out or move it to Advanced?
jonc: but it's not Advanced under our criteria of doesn't fail with tools
<JonC> first do no harm....
RESOLUTION: close lc-jmarsh-2 as rejected, subject to tools working with the pattern
pauld: thinks the example is
demonstrating two uses of annotation, should be split
... do we want an ElementDocumentationElement and a SchemaDocumentationElement, etc, etc?
... is there value in such fine-grained patterns?
gcowe: it's mostly ignored by tools anyway
pauld: we could go the other way and make the example have ComplexType/xs:annotation SimpleType/xs:annotation, etc to be clear, but then that would be difficult if we moved SimpleType to Advanced at some point
jonc: one pattern seems good enough
pauld: it's confusing, maybe we
need another test case, but simplify the example in the
... we need to test it before splitting the pattern
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe: to split DocumentationElement example into more than one example / testcase [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action07]
<trackbot> Sorry, couldn't find user - gcowe:
RESOLUTION: accept lc-jmarsh-3
<JonC> I think we recognise the feeling here that it is the lack of problematic patterns that is of interest
<JonC> but it is not what the basic patterns document is really about
pauld: the pattern is Basic if
tools swallow it without barfing
... is the @mixed!='true' really saying //@mixed!='true'
Jonc: it's a slippery slope
pauld: seen schemas which generate this and other defaults explicitly and interoperate
RESOLUTION: lc-jmarsh-4 rejected
pauld: this is a little like like ROOM 101
pauld: puzzled - R2112 is
something we allow, but BP doesn't whereas R2800 is
... let's reject it and get Jonathan to explain why, he is a BP expert after all!
RESOLUTION: lc-jmarsh-5 rejected
jonc: we're about what works with toolkits now, not what might be removed in the future
gcowe: we find attributes useful, certainly we don't want to move away from them
<JonC> also think that we have never been in the business of setting the bar so very low
pauld: I'd be sympathetic if
there was a "state of the art" toolkit which didn't handle
... under our way of working, attributes are fine, but I think it's an interesting comment, and a warning things may be more constrained
... I'd like to be able to round-trip to and from JSON without a schema, and such a constraint would help greatly
<JonC> we have identified issues with attributes and marked as advanced this is the way forward not removing support for them entirely
pauld: our testing will help
... nothing to stop Microsoft publishing their own "Very Basic" document using our patterns, or a few of them, anyway
... actually that's something we'd encourage, vendors being more explicit about which patterns are or are not supported
RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-1 rejected
pauld: worries me because I use it to wrap example elements into the test suite WSDL
jonc: all our schemas contain them
pauld: I think it's a valid
constraint though, and there are no natural equivalent in most
modern programming languages (C pointers anyone?)
... well, not to a type, that is
<JonC> but what toolkit fails with them?
pauld: exactly, that's our criteria
discussion of mapping global elements to programming languages
if a sequence contains elements from a different namespace, what's the mapping to a C#/Java class?
pauld: .NET annotations cope with
... do we need a test case for crossing namespaces, or tighten the pattern to just within the same namespace?
... nervous of defining such patterns as they need a component model to span schemas
gcowe: do we need an example of spanning multiple namespaces?
pauld: propose we split this
pattern to "within the same schema document" and "across
schemas" not namespaces, and then have an example to test
... OK, we'll keep this open, subject to testing
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to split ElementReference into two patterns [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action08]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Split ElementReference into two patterns [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: I think they're being helpful, are we too fine-grained here?
gcowe: it's complexity that's needed
jonc: is maxOccurs=1 a typeo
gcowe: think this is pushing
wrapped for repeated elements
... modelling tools don't always generate wrapped arrays
jonc: we may end up making bare arrays advanced subject to testing
pauld: let's hold off on this subject to testing
pauld: big +1 to that
RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-4 accepted
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to add advice that schemaLocation is a hint [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action09]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Add advice that schemaLocation is a hint [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: I agree with the comment!
gcowe: we need this for our schemas
jonc: our criteria is if tools don't reject it it's basic
pauld: zero, one, many
... few tools do validation, or build an array anymore, well 'C' might
... hold this open subject to testing
this came from an X.694 inspired contribution
pauld: it's valid schema, comment asks if it's useful
do we have to justify use of patterns in the spec?
scribe: it is listed as a "
... way of saying a value is Null
... always Null in X.694
pauld: it is fairly Zen though,
sound of no data passing
... what does it mean to accept this comment?
... will write back and explain the origin, will remain in the spec subject to testing, but i suspect one tool at least doesn't support it, so it's toast
<JonC> advanced toast anyway
RESOLUTION: lc-Microsoft-6 accepted
Jonc: bare arrays
pauld: "Bare arrays do not
support the distinction between null arrays and empty
... seems like a valid comment from a code-first POV
... you can't send a null array with a bare array
... we've decided not to offer advice on chosing a pattern, is this a special case?
<JonC> also valid comment from a efficiency/productivity POV e.g. XSLT
pauld: i don't understand the efficiency comment
jonc: tools don't bail on this
pauld: sounds like a "Design
... maybe the XSLT comment referds to A* B* C* A*
... seems like I might elect not to use this pattern, but does that mean that schemas which exhibit this pattern are rejected by tools?
... how strongly do people feel about this? Do we need more information, how widely used is the pattern?
gcowe: we use it
<JonC> sounds more like best practice recommendation ???
pauld: and you're a member of the
... it's in our spec, to lose it we have to demonstrate lack of support. To accept the comment we have to change the way we work. I might not like this pattern but if it works with tools and is used in Schemas in the wild, then it's basic.
jonc: we're going to continue using wrapped as our default, but don't see any reason to remove as yet
pauld: let's keep it open, subject to testing
pauld: a challenge to write an
XPath for this across multiple schema documents, but is the
... in some ways depends upon lc-Microsoft-7
... do we have a test case?
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to write a test case for lc-Microsoft-8 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action10]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Write a test case for lc-Microsoft-8 [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20].
gcowe: patterns detection
... can we reference a stylesheet for the output?
pauld: prefer to do that server side
<scribe> ACTION: ylafon to make patterns detection service run stylesheet [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action11]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-113 - Make patterns detection service run stylesheet [on Yves Lafon - due 2007-02-20].
gcowe: I have a version which works with file upload and URI
yves: can we provide the source / war file for people wanting to run this for themselves
gcowe: that's fine
pauld: what about the "freshness" of the patterns.xml file used, where does it come from?
ylafon: service runs from a copy of the stylesheet
pauld: how do we get changes
... can we put the source code war file rollup into the WG CVS?
gcowe: we could make the service pickup the live version, and make that configurable
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to make the detection service pick up the live stylesheet, configurably [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action12]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-114 - Make the detection service pick up the live stylesheet, configurably [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20].
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to put patterns detection source code into WG CVS [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action13]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-115 - Put patterns detection source code into WG CVS [on George Cowe - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: when do we go live / announce the service?
yves: not tied to publication of our documents
pauld: plan to announce it with
publication of our reports
... do we consider bundling WS-I BP in our service?
RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-1 accepted
pwalmsley: ok with me!
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to edit lc-pwalmsley-1 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action14]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-117 - Edit lc-pwalmsley-1 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: we also have this as lc-drkm-1
pwalmsley: term node-set isn't used in XPath, is order significant
RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-2 accepted
RESOLUTION: close lc-drkm-1 as accepted
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to edit lc-pwalmsley-2 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action15]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-118 - Edit lc-pwalmsley-2 [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
pauld: also closes lc-drkm-1: XPath 2.0 and node-set ?
pwalmsley: example doesn't have any elements
name of the pattern is misleading?
pwalmsley: don't feel strongly, we can just leave it
pauld: we have an assertion: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-patterns/#assert-QualifiedLocalElements-summary
RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-3 rejected
pwalmsley: OK with this
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-5
pwalmsley: OK with this
pwalmsley: might be invalid use of schema
pauld: trying to capture a common
pattern used within WSDL
... maybe we could add another clause to capture self reference in (@namespace = ../xs:schema/@targetNamespace)]
pwalmsley: that would be an invalid schema
RESOLUTION: rejected lc-pwalmsley-6
pwalmsley: I'm OK with that
pauld: exists not to fire the catchall
pwalmsley: might not be necessary
<pwalmsley> ./xs:element[@name and @type and contains(@type, ':')]/ (., @name, @type)
pauld: simplifying is goodness
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to remove @name and @type from GlobalAttribute and GlobalElement [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2007/02/13-databinding-minutes.html#action16]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-119 - Remove @name and @type from GlobalAttribute and GlobalElement [on Paul Downey - due 2007-02-20].
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-7
pwalmsley: OK with that!
pwalmsley: a client also encountered this issue, so happy to withdraw the comment
RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-8 rejected
RESOLUTION: accepted lc-pwalmsley-9
pwalmsley: I'm OK with that!
RESOLUTION: accepted lc-pwalmsley-10
pwalmsley: I'm OK, it's incorrect
<pwalmsley> .//xs:element[@maxOccurs != ('0','1','unbounded')]
pwalmsley: other comment in the mail on global element sequence - please ignore
pauld: similar issue
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-11
pauld: not (* except xs:annotation) seems good
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-12
pauld: we've been here before!
<pwalmsley> analogous to 11 and 12
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-13, lc-pwalmsley-14
pwalmsley: it's editorial, wording
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-15
pwalmsley: same again!
RESOLUTION: accept lc-pwalmsley-16
pwalmsley: withdraw that one, cathcall picks it up
RESOLUTION: lc-pwalmsley-17 rejected
pwalmsley: I'm OK with all the resolutions!
pauld: Right, rest of our time is to be spent working on the reports - so we're ADJOURNED!