IDE Minutes 2009 10 29

From MemberWiki

Jump to: navigation, search




  • Lori Hylan-Cho
  • Kin Blas, Adobe
  • Jon Ferraiolo, IBM
  • Javier Pedemonte, IBM


Futures appendix

Jon: Only question was Lori saying "tranclusion" not defined in Websters. But is defined in wikipedia as a computer science term

Lori: OK

Jon: I'll make sure that we are using the term correctly. If not, I'll find the right term to use

References appendix

Jon: No comments from Lori. Did you look at it?

Lori: Yes. Nothing looked wrong.

Jon: Yes, just a few links to RFCs

'defaultFormat' proposal from Kin

Jon: I understand the need, the proposal is OK, couldn't think of anything better

Lori: Same

Jon: Any objections?

Kin: Is there a better name?

Lori: Why won't 'defaultValue' do the trick?

Kin: 'defaultValue' says you must conform to a particular RFC for the provided value.

(discussion about 'defaultValue'. conclusion is won't work for this case.)

Jon: How about 'outputDefault' instead of 'defaultFormat'?

RESOLUTION: Add 'outputDefault'

Kin: I'll send an email with proposals on the details

Jon: After that, I'll put into spec with red-colored comments to flag for review

Kin: I'll send email about problems we are having with current definition of date. Doesn't work with numeric values. We work around by using strings.

'type' instead of 'datatype' for <topic>, default to "*"

Lori/Kin: No problems with the proposal

Jon: Javier, what do you think?

Javier: OK with me. Yeah, it makes more sense from a mashup point of view.

Future phone calls

Jon: We are done with spec review and no open issues. I suggest cancelling the regular phone call and only have a call when we have issues to discuss.

Kin/Lori/Javier: Makes sense.

Personal tools