Re: Call for Participants.

[mark_harrison_uk2]

--- In <a
href="/group/xAP_developer/post?postID=5XM6t8l2dy-Ajnl19ENTn6PbcKqMvvV3H2pMqecU2Y02mYH4hogTvSyj8p2p84qB9FbsPN4JnlXgJC2bfTZudQ0X0OC9">xAP_developer@xxxxxxx</a>,
"Kevin Hawkins" <lists@u...>
wrote:
> All classes named xAP. were to be 'formally' approved for
> the xAP spec as I remember it -

That was the point of posting the message here rather than just
delivering an app with a class called barcode.input.

> I think the idea was to get a tried and trusted schema in
> place and once used, tweaked, loved it would become adopted &amp;
> xAP'd , same with body names.

That wasn't my understanding or intention. I had intended that the
xap- classes would be discussed and then approved. What I wanted to
avoid was the situation where different people launch similar schemas
and then have to rewrite code once it's released to make it comply
with a "xap-" schema. Far better to determine the schema first.

>
> Just a comment that you are also setting the class name and
> the body name to the same thing whereas the class defines
> the schema which is essentially a list of the types of body
> parts that might be encountered (a list of body names)

Again, it was always my intention that where the set of schemas in a
class was unitary, then the class name and the body part name could
and should be identical.

> Generic input and output schemas eh ?? :-) :-)

Yes :-) :-) :-)

Mark