Databinding WG Teleconference

14 Nov 2006


See also: IRC log


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



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?


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


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 $