[Bug 11354] Mentions of "override" outside of the override section

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11354

Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ht@inf.ed.ac.uk

--- Comment #4 from Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk> 2011-03-07 17:24:01 UTC ---
I'm confused.  As I read the spec., it's not only true that Dold' may still
contain <override> elts, it will _always_ contain as many <override>s as the
sum of the number of <override>s and the number of <include>s it started out
with.

Dold' is not I think what we meant when we talked about 'raw' and 'cooked' --
our conversation, and the revised resolution in comment 2, only makes sense if
by 'cooked' what we _actually_ meant was, as it were, Dnew' == the result of

  The <override> element in schema document Dnew pointing to Dold is
  replaced by an <include> element pointing to Dold&#8242; 

notwithstanding the Note saying

  Note: It is not necessary to perform a literal replacement of the <override>
  element in Dnew with an <include> element; any implementation technique
  can be used as long as it produces the required result.

This leads me to ask a historical question:  When we introduced the explicit
transform mechanism to handle both chameleon include and override, why did we
add the "not D2 but D2'" and "not Dold but Dold'" Notes (and of course the
normative bits which justify them)?  In what circumstances would D2 be
non-conforming but D2' be conforming?  Likewise for Dold and Dold'?  Sorry if
the answers are in the archive -- I have been unable to figure out how to look
for them. . .

-- 
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 March 2011 17:24:06 UTC