[Bug 3969] Assertions: problems with basic concepts

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3969


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
           Keywords|                            |resolved
         Resolution|                            |INVALID




------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-02-24 01:08 -------
This issue has been addressed in a wording proposal adopted at the New
Orleans face to face meeting on 31 January of this year; final amendments
to the wording were approved on today's WG teleconference.  Accordingly,
I'm marking this issue as closed.

The quick summary:  the 'report' element has been deleted, as suggested in
point 1).  The 'assert' element, however, remains an element, since
the WG regarded the ability to have several distinct assertions, with
distinct annotations and identities, on the same type.  So point 2) was
not adopted.  On point 3), the views of the WG were divided, so the
answer to your rhetorical question is: no, not everyone likes the ability
to add assertions in the course of defining an extension.  But those of
that mind failed to persuade the rest of the WG.  One reason given for
retaining the status quo was that there are already cases with similar
effect:  by adding an attribute declaration whose name matches a 
pre-existing wildcard, an extension can effectively restrict a complex type
(since attributes with that name must now conform to the specified
type), even in the course of an extension step. Most persuasive for some
in the WG, perhaps, was the observation that one might want to add
elements X, Y, and Z to a complex type, and at the same time make an
assertion about their interrelations.  It would seem awkward to require
two derivation steps to do such a natural thing.  Allowing such an
extension step also seems to require allowing the extension step to
add X, Y, and Z, and at the same time restrict the interrelation of
children A, B, and C.  Even if this seems odd, it was felt that this is
an acceptable price for being able to make assertions about X, Y, and
Z at the time they are added to the content model.

Since one of the three points you make was accepted, and two were
not accepted, it's not clear whether this issue should be marked
FIXED or WONTFIX or INVALID.  Since two out of three proposals were 
declined, on the grounds that there is not really a problem, I
guess INVALID is arithmetically more appropriate.  Accordingly, I am
marking the issue RESOLVED / INVALID.

As originator of the issue, Fabio, you are asked to signal whether
you are content with the consideration and disposition of the comment,
by changing the status from RESOLVED to CLOSED, if you agree with
the disposition (or are willing to acquiesce in it), or by changing
it to REOPENED if you wish to signal a strong dissent and a formal
appeal from the decision of the WG.  If we don't hear from you in 
a couple of weeks, we'll assume you are content.

Received on Saturday, 24 February 2007 01:08:24 UTC