- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:53:11 -0400
- To: Mukul Gandhi <gandhi.mukul@gmail.com>
- Cc: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Michael Sperberg-McQueen wrote: > (The definition of a term for them in the PSVI does not > actually make much difference in practice, since the > information in question has always been > present in any case: any attribute among the [inherited > attributes] of an element is necessarily present among the > [attributes] of an ancestor element.) Mukul: you might be tempted to take the above as contradicting what I said earlier about APIs. First of all, Michael is right in what he says: whether or not we had chosen to explicitly include in the PSVI the inherited attributes, processors have the information they need to determine what they are. Some processors may report them, and some may not, and both options would have been available if we had not put them explicitly into the PSVI. What I would have said if I were writing a bit more carefully is: certain designers of processors or APIs for validation have chosen to use the PSVI as a guide for what should be reported to applications. Calling out the inherited attributes in the PSVI thus somewhat increases the chances that designers of Schema 1.1 processors will decide to report them, and to do so in a consistent manner across processors. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 7 August 2009 20:53:58 UTC