- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:47:42 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11062 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-10-15 13:47:41 UTC --- It seems that the WG was aware of this when it wrote rule 1.1.3 of 3.12.4: 1.1.3 E's [inherited attributes] which do not have the same expanded names as any of E's [attributes]. It still seems an odd way of defining the property; do we really envisage applications which want to know about the inherited attributes even if they are masked by local attributes? This rule also reveals an apparent intent by the WG that inherited attributes should be available for use in Conditional Type Assignment but not in assertions or in so-called identity constraints. Again this seems curious: why the asymmetry? How do we see this moving forward in new versions of XPath and XDM? I would have expected new versions of XDM to expose inherited attributes just like ordinary attributes (the same way defaulted attributes are exposed today). It seems clumsy to suggest that they will sometimes be exposed and sometimes not. -- 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, 15 October 2010 13:47:43 UTC