See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 28 November 2006
<scribe> scribe: pauld
minutes from the 21st approved
<scribe> ACTION: yves to add LC-Basic as a product on tracker [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-91 - Add LC-Basic as a product on tracker [on Yves Lafon - due 2006-12-05].
pauld: we're in last call
george: been working on a validation service, have a JSP
yves: send me the source, will look into it when the team return
pauld: i'm a block, will get a page put up
yves: still working on XMLUnit
vlad: been trying the testsuite in our framework, some general directions
pauld: include is broken
... we need small schemas to include in some of our examples
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to look at fixing our include issues, ISSUE-98 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Look at fixing our include issues, ISSUE-98 [on George Cowe - due 2006-12-05].
pauld: we seem to have a number of patterns for Advanced which we closed the issue, but aren't in the patterns and examples
jonc: how do we get vendors'
input on what isn't implementable?
... can we get a commnity input, or on an individual basis
... is there a vendor concensus
pauld: we have a working group,
they can join
... business as usual, we may get some interest from the LC
... testsuite will help
... more interested in if we end up with the whole of schema covered, or only patterns we see in use?
... maybe we should just examine some Advanced issues and find our way
jonc: is the concern this could
be a job for life?:
... some of us are only interested in the Basic, vendors may be more interested in the Advanced?
pauld: think schema publishers
may also be interested in Advanced
... risk is that anyone could come with any pattern and we would publish it as Advanced
jonc: if *any* recognised toolkit can process a pattern, then it could be "Advanced"
pauld: so what about "open
enumeration type" no toolkit may support it, but i want it in
... would it be acceptable for us to assign a URI for a pattern, but not put it in either document?
jonc: would any schema author want to use a pattern not implementable in a databinding toolkit
pauld: would like to have
coverage for any valid schema
... thinking we stop when we run out of time
... am I overthinking this
george: not had many people contributing patterns
yves: we should contact people now we have LC documents
vlad: submitted some patterns, and publically available schemas, may not be representative in terms of coverage
pauld: ok so we need outreach
george: we need to make sure we have coverage of patterns from our issues list
pauld: george, submit your
... we seem to have some base types missing for enumerations
pauld: so we need better coverage of base types
george: may not be firing in our examples
pauld: will raise appInfo as a separate issue
RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-97 on basis of exploding into other issues
<scribe> ACTION: pdowney to explode ISSUE-97 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-93 - Explode ISSUE-97 [on Paul Downey - due 2006-12-05].
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.127 of Date: 2005/08/16 15:12:03 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Found Scribe: pauld Inferring ScribeNick: pauld Default Present: Jon_Calladine, Vlad, George?, Yves, pauld Present: Jon_Calladine Vlad George? Yves pauld Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2006Nov/0036.html WARNING: No meeting chair found! You should specify the meeting chair like this: <dbooth> Chair: dbooth Found Date: 28 Nov 2006 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html People with action items: gcowe pdowney yves[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]