- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:43:50 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=7242 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |WORKSFORME --- Comment #4 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2009-09-04 16:43:50 --- The XML Schema WG discussed this issue again at its call this morning, and concluded (a) that the current spec does not actually have the kind of type inconsistency feared in the original report, and (b) that the additional type check described in point 4 of comment #3 is probably not worth introducing. We were led to the second conclusion by several observations. The only benefit of the type check is to minimize complications for any future attempt to devise a more general mechanism in which default values are derived from the XML-instance context. It currently seems very unlikely that any such mechanism will ever be devised, proposed, or adopted in this or any future version of the XSD spec which binds itself to full backwards and forwards compatibility. So the likelihood of any benefit being realized appears to be small, and the benefit, if realized, will be rather modest. Finally, it seems very late in the day for this kind of design reconsideration: the spec is not a Last Call draft but a Candidate Recommendation. In sum, making the change described in comment #3 appears to be a case of some pain for no gain. Accordingly, the WG has asked me to record here our intention to class this bug report as WORKSFORME, reflecting the fact that there aren't in fact any type inconsistencies introduced by inheritable attributes, and to close the bug without further action. I'm changing the status of the bug to RESOLVED. The addition of this comment should cause email to be sent to the originator of the bug report, to whom the following remarks are addressed. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion of the bug, and decide whether you are satisfied that the WG has given the bug report serious consideration and disposed of it appropriately. If you are content to accept the WG's proposed resolution, please indicate so by changing the status of the bug to CLOSED. If you are unhappy with the proposed resolution and wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director of the W3C, please so indicate by changing the status to REOPENED (and, of course, explaining in a comment why you are unhappy and what changes might satisfy your requirements). If we don't hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume that you are satisfied with the resolution of the issue. Thank you very much for commenting on the spec. -- 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 Friday, 4 September 2009 16:44:04 UTC