See also: IRC log
<trackbot-ng> Date: 11 March 2008
yves, getting "conference is restricted"
<Yves> hum, try to wait for an operator, then
<gcowe> i seem to be on conference ok, but only me!
<Yves> telcon ended (as we are one hour late)
<scribe> scribe: pauld
pauld: we need to renew the charter, runs out end of this month
yves: we need to have a document published, that'll help
<JonC> Hi
<JonC> Cannot join conference call...
pauld: we need to list the changes from the previous Last Call publication
gcowe: "elementfinal" isn't valid, and is "Basic", should be removed
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2008Feb/0008.html
pauld: testing worked?
gcowe: example was missing
pauld: doubly sure we should
remove it
... OK so "ElementFinal" is removed as a pattern
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2008Feb/0013.html
<gcowe> elementfixed was a new advanced pattern added
pauld: elementfixed accepted as
an advaced
... I'll produce a list of differences
XML Schema WG send comments: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding-comments/2008Feb/0000.html
pauld: most look reasonable
... most look like they apply to spec as it stands
... suggest I raise these as LC issues, publish this week on
the list and we OK at a meeting next tuesday
<Yves> http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20061122/
pauld: have a technique for annotation schema, should have it tonight
$ cvs co -r1.67 patterns.xml
last call patterns: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/patterns/patterns-lc1.xml
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/databinding/edcopy/patterns/patterns.xml
need to record list of patterns added and removed since our last, last call
gcowe: will look at the differences
"""
* References to concepts and terminology from XSD need to be made more
precise. For example, section 1.3 says "A document claiming conformance
to this specification ... MUST conform to the [XML Schema 1.0
Recommendation]", but XSD provides no conformance requirements for
"documents" in general. It would be more appropriate to say that "A
document claiming conformance to this specification ... MUST be a 'schema
document' [2], as defined in [XML Schema 1.0 Recommendation], and MUST
therefore meet the "Constraints on the representation of schema components
in XML" [3] provided therein." Actually, there's a further mismatch on
infosets vs. serialization; see next point.
"""
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#document-conformance
RESOLUTION: Accepted suggested text for lc-xsd-1
"""
* 1.3 also says that a document conforming to the databinding
specification must be a well formed XML 1.0 document; XSD defines a
schema document as an Infoset with <xs:schema> as the root element. You
should make clear whether the mismatch is intentional, and if so rewrite
the text suggested above accordingly. Otherwise, you should change to
indicate that a conforming document is infact an Infoset, consistent with
XSD. That will mean changing the many references to XML 1.0 documents
that appear throughout your draft.
"""
pauld: we discussed this early on, I should find evidence of our discussion, but we agreed to work at the XML level, and this is an addition constraint over the XML Schema spec, and this is a part of our relationship to the WS-I BP
RESOLUTION: Rejected lc-xsd-2
"""
* Section 1.4 suggests that a conforming application "SHOULD be able to
process any valid [XML Schema 1.0] document.". First of all, there's some
question as to whether a SHOULD is appropriate in a conformance section.
Notwithstanding that, the reference to [XML Schema 1.0] documents is
again not strictly clear, since XSD talks about instances to be validated
as well as schema documents. We suggest a formal reference to 'schema
documents' [2] as in the first point above.
"""
pauld: whole point of our spec is that not all implementations can swallow any documents
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#implementation-conformance
pauld: what would be the advantage of removing this?
yves: wouldn't impact people's reading of the document
pauld: anyone want to argue against removing: http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-xmlschema-patterns-20071031/#assert-AnySchema
RESOLUTION: Accept lc-xsd-3 and remove assert-AnySchema
"""
* Section 1.4 says that conformance requires that an implementation: "
MUST produce a data model exposing all of the [XML 1.0] element node and
attribute node content described by the originating [XML Schema 1.0]
document.", but "described by" is not a formal relation or operation
provided for in XSD. Especially in a conformance requirement, this seems
too informal.
"""
pauld: no alternative terminology
suggested. "described by" is pretty OK by me, but then I'm no
spec lawyer
... any suggestions for better suggestion?
yves: "per"
pauld: or we could define "described by"
gcowe: "constrained by"
pauld: "constrained" is used throughout the XML Schema spec
RESOLUTION: Accept lc-xsd-4 replacing "described" with "constrained"
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.133 of Date: 2008/01/18 18:48:51 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/ls// Succeeded: s/lx-xsd/lc-xsd/ Succeeded: s/Accpet/Accept/ Found Scribe: pauld Inferring ScribeNick: pauld WARNING: No "Present: ... " found! Possibly Present: Jonc Yves databinding gcowe joined pauld trackbot-ng You can indicate people for the Present list like this: <dbooth> Present: dbooth jonathan mary <dbooth> Present+ amy Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-xsd-databinding/2008Mar/0001.html Found Date: 11 Mar 2008 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2008/03/11-databinding-minutes.html People with action items: WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]