ISSUE-62

Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document?

State:

OPEN

Product:

Advanced

Raised by:

Paul Downey

Opened on:

2006-06-01

Description:

We have a strong criteria for moving a pattern between the Advanced and Basic
patterns documents following ISSUE-61, but what criteria would lead to a
submitted pattern NOT being included in our Advanced patterns document? 

An example to consider would be 'redefine'. Is it possible to abstract
'redefine' in a way likely to give developers a 'good experience' with
databinding tools? 

It seems this is one area in which good input the vendor community and CR is
essential.

This issue arose from discussions at the Edinburgh F2F and may be related to
some of the points raised in ISSUE-1 by Vladislav.

Related emails:

1. ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document? (from dean+cgi@w3.org on 2006-06-01)
2. Minutes from XML Schema Patterns for Databinding F2F 22-23 May 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-06-02)
3. RE: ISSUE-62: Why would a pattern NOT be included in our Advanced document? (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-06-02)
4. RE: ISSUE-74: Relative URIs in targetNamespace schemaLocation (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-10-19)
5. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 7 November 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-11-14)
6. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 28 November 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-11-26)
7. Minutes: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 28 November 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-11-28)
8. Agenda: XML Schema Patterns for Databinding telcon 12 December 2006 (from paul.downey@bt.com on 2006-12-11)

Related notes: