W3C

- DRAFT -

Databinding WG Teleconference

14 Nov 2006

Agenda

See also: IRC log

Attendees

Present
Vladislav Bezrukov (SAP AG)
Jon Calladine (BT)
George Cowe (Origo Services Limited)
Paul Downey (BT)
Regrets
Yves Lafon (W3C)
Otu Ekanem (BT)
Chair
pauld
Scribe
pauld

Contents


Administivia

jonc: has to drop off early, sorry!

pauld: plan to make this a short call

minutes from the 7th November approved

ISSUE-93: xs:gMonth and xs:gDay are advanced

pauld: mono and others barf

any objections to moving gDay and gMonth to advanced?

RESOLUTION: close ISSUE-93 as being advanced

Moving to Last Call

pauld: did a bunch of editing, including an attempt to define the term "state of art"

pauld: our biggest risk is we've missed somthing obviously "Basic"

pauld: had mail from Yves, W3C would like to move to LC

jonc: BT happy to move forward

gcowe: Origo is OK to move forward

gcowe: we're more interested in patterns detection

vladislav: would ideally like more time to review, but OK to move forward, but may contribute Basic patterns during Last Call

pauld: discussion of what Last Call means.

pauld: be aware that if the WG adds a pattern to Basic Last Call, that could be seen as a "substantive change" and may take us back to a Working Draft.

pauld: it's no disgrace for us to have two Last Calls given our level of participation

pauld: OK, so we're agreed. Let's go to Last Call!

pauld: will complete editorial AIs today and notify the WG on the member list

ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document?

http://www.w3.org/2005/06/tracker/databinding/issues/62

pauld: plan to start lining up our advanced issues, and am collectiong patterns as being "pending", expect more issues soon.

pauld: what wouldn't we include? redefine seeems to be an obvious no-no for databinding, but why? We need to know when to stop.

vladislav: would argue against redefine!
... probably not mentioning redefine is best

pauld: we only have positive patterns, so that's how we're thinking

gcowe: we're happy with the Basic and our patterns in Advanced, not looking for much more

pauld: that's the risk, we're a small WG and we only look at schemas of interest to us

gcowe: will submit some missing patterns

pauld: been collecting public schemas from the wild and have 40 something to cvs commit along with a cool ant taks to fetch, cache and detect patterns

gcowe: how many patterns remain to be documented?

pauld: hard to say, depends on the granularity of the tool

discussion of possbile inferance tool - intersect patterns in a schema with patterns known to work with a given tool

vladislav: submitted several issues, including versioning ?

pauld: BT is very interested in versioning. We'll get to this soon, but I'm worried about open ended discussion, making concrete proposals for patterns is going to be our best way forward.

ISSUE-95: totalDigits for xs:decimal

vladislav: came from precisionDecimal pattern, possibly a simpler approach to constrain the size of decimal
... not sure it's Basic, and we may have an alternative approach

gcowe: lets see how the testsuite handles it

RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-95 as a Basic pattern

ISSUE-96: SequenceMaxOccurs

gcowe: thinks sequence/@maxOccurs is a Basic pattern

pauld: OK, so we're almost in Last Call. Let's raise it as an issue, accept it in advance as being Basic?

no objections

RESOLUTION: accept ISSUE-96 as a Basic pattern

ADJOURNED

Summary of Action Items

[End of minutes]

Minutes formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.127 (CVS log)
$Date: 2006/11/14 17:48:32 $