See also: IRC log
minutes from the 21st approved
pauld: so we're in last call
<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: ACTION ITEMS are getting out of control. Please mop up.
george: been working on a validation service, have a JSP, it's Java 5 based
yves: send me the source, will look into hosting it when the team return from Japan
pauld: OK i'm the block here, will get a page put up
yves: still working on XMLUnit, plan to have something by end of the week
vlad: been trying the testsuite in our framework, need some general directions
pauld: you are not alone, I will work on the Test Suite page
pauld: include examples are broken
... we need small schemas to include in some of our examples
<scribe> ACTION: gcowe to look at fixing our include examples, ISSUE-98 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/11/28-databinding-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-92 - Look at fixing our include examples, 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 as a result of LC
... publishing our 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 then 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 can stop when we run out of time
... am I overthinking this issue?
george: we haven't had many people contributing patterns
pauld: that's important point. Lack of participation remains a worry.
<pauld> looks for a carrot shaped stick ;-)
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. I'll work on that.
george: we need to make sure we have coverage of patterns from our issues list
pauld: OK george, submit your patterns ;-)
pauld: so we seem to have some base types (xs:token) missing for enumerations
pauld: and we need better coverage of base types for patterns
george: may not be firing in our schemas
pauld: puzzled because it works OK for our examples, eg:
pauld: appInfo is very open ended. "Annotations" are called out in our Charter.
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].