Re: Data Model WD - Issue-0064

Hi Jeni,

We will change the title of Issue-0064 to "Including type definition
in element constructors" to better reflect its content and clarify
the remark about attributes in the description of the issue as
"Should the same be done for attribute node constructors for
consistency, (even though attributes cannot have xsi:type attributes)?

Best regards,
Marton Nagy


> 
> Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 14:20:27 +0000
> From: Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>
> Message-ID: <56538976336.20020113142027@jenitennison.com>
> To: www-xml-query-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Data Model WD - Issue-0064
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I think Issue-0064 should be renamed something like "Including type in
> element constructors" - it's a comment on the editorial note just
> after the element-complex-node constructor in Section 4.2 which says:
> 
>  "The constructor only takes the element declaration, because it's
>   possible to derive the type of an element or attribute from its
>   corresponding declaration. But would it be cleaner to include the
>   type in the constructor as well?"
> 
> Issue-0064 is a "yes" to that question, because the type of an element
> is not always the same as the type of the element declaration - if it
> has an xsi:type attribute, the type named there is the type of the
> element. The same applies to the element-simple-node constructor. It
> doesn't apply to attributes, since attributes can't have xsi:type
> attributes, obviously, but it might be worth making the change for the
> attribute node constructors for the sake of consistency.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Jeni
> ---
> Jeni Tennison
> http://www.jenitennison.com/
>

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2002 16:00:41 UTC