This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 5436 - Editorial: replace 'attributed to' with 'bound to' ?
Summary: Editorial: replace 'attributed to' with 'bound to' ?
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Macintosh All
: P2 minor
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: terminology cluster
Keywords: editorial, noFurtherAction
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-01-29 03:00 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2009-10-10 01:23 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2008-01-29 03:00:08 UTC
To describe how elements in the instance are matched against specific
particles and terms, XSD has long used the concept of 'attribution'.
Elements are 'attributed to' specific particles; the unique particle
attribution rule guarantees that in context, there will never be any doubt
about which particle an element instance should be attributed to.

The concept also applies to attributes, whose treatment varies a bit if
they are attributed to a wildcard.

Phrases like 'X is attributed to Y' offer rich opportunities for 
confusion in any discussion involving XML, where attributes in a different
sense play a role, and it is not surprising that some readers of the spec
have raised their eyebrows quizzically, or complained bitterly, when they
encountered that usage in XSD 1.1.

Perhaps 'is bound to' would be less confusing? 

There may be some interaction with the current term 'default binding', but 
as bug 5157 illustrates, that term may be confusing in itself and it might
be worth changing it.
Comment 1 Michael Kay 2008-01-29 09:08:23 UTC
I think bind/bound is somewhat overused: it's a very general word for a relationship with very little information about the specific nature of the relationship. Its use in the sense of "data binding" could create confusion.

There are words that are less overloaded with existing meanings. A glance at a thesaurus suggests 

accredited, ascribed, imputed

Unique particle accreditation, anyone?

Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2009-10-10 01:22:51 UTC
In August and September 2009 the XML Schema working group performed
triage on the remaining open issues in a WBS poll [1], whose results
are summarized at [2] and accepted formally at [3]. In the course of
that triage we decided to close this issue without further action.
Since this is a WG issue, not an external one, I'm going both to mark
it resolved and to close it.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/19482/200908CRissues/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2009Sep/0005.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Sep/att-0005/2009-09-11telcon.html#item04
(all links member-only)