[Bug 7242] Type inconsistencies introduced by inheritable attributes

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7242


Peter.Geraghty@tracegroup.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WORKSFORME                  |




--- Comment #5 from Peter.Geraghty@tracegroup.com  2009-09-07 10:17:49 ---
(In reply to comment #4)

If I understand the situation correctly, this has been closed because
inheritable attributes are in fact only considered in relation to CTA, and in
this context the issues I raised are not material.

If that is the case, there should at least be a correction to appendix G.1
which says....

•Attribute declarations can now be marked {inheritable} (see Inherited
Attributes (§3.3.5.6)) and the values of inherited attributes are accessible in
the XDM data model instance constructed for checking assertions (see Assertions
(§3.13)) and for conditional type assignment (see Type Alternatives (§3.12)). 
Among other consequences, this allows conditional type assignment and
assertions to be sensitive to the inherited value of the xml:lang attribute 

I think it is fair to say that the above statement is commonly believed to be
the case even though it does not tally with the normative sections of the
document.  For example, the recent powerpoint circulated by Roger Costello on
xmlschema-dev@w3.org explains inheritable attributes with examples which are in
fact spurious since they don't relate to CTA, but no one replied to point this
out.

I would like to ask again whether inheritable attributes considered in CTA are
of practical benefit in any of the areas that 1.1 is trying address.  I.e., re
there important known situations, whether Atom or otherwise, where inheritable
attributes would be useful in CTA?  I think that adding a feature which is
likely to be commonly misunderstood and has no known practical benefit would be
a bad idea.

If there are practical benefits and the feature is to remain as stated in the
normative section then I accept that a change to appendix G.1 would be
sufficient to close this issue.


-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.

Received on Monday, 7 September 2009 10:17:59 UTC