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 6465 - Namespace fixup and inherited attributes
Summary: Namespace fixup and inherited attributes
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-01-22 17:49 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-01-26 15:40 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2009-01-22 17:49:22 UTC
The following is an excerpt from Michael Kay's email (member-only):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Jan/0041.html

I think that where we describe the addition of the new property [inherited
attributes], we need to specify that the addition of an inherited attribute
to an element should invoke namespace fixup in the same way as adding a
defaulted attribute. (In most cases, of course, the namespace will already
be in scope, because it will have been declared on the element from which
the attribute is inherited. But namespace fixup can still be needed if the
relevant prefix has been rebound or unbound at an intermediate level.)

This also means that the inherited attribute may have a different prefix
from the original. The current text doesn't seem to give enough detail on
how the attribute information items in [inherited attributes] are
constructed; I think that there is a need to spell out the properties of
these information items in the same way as we do for defaulted attributes.
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2009-01-22 17:49:48 UTC
The following is Sandy's response in (member-only):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2009Jan/0042.html

For [inherited attributes], I don't think we need to perform the same
fixup. They are just references to other information items, just like the
[parent] property points to the parent element. The key point is that
members of the [inherited attributes], unlike defaulted ones, are *not*
members of the [attributes].

But I do agree that when it comes to constructing a DTM for CTA, namespace
bindings are needed, because [inherited attributes] are considered part of
[attributes] at that point.
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2009-01-26 15:40:42 UTC
During its 2009-01-23 telecon, the schema WG adopted a proposal to address this issue.

The proposal (along with other changes) can be found at (member-only):
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-1/structures.omni.20090123.html

The adopted change is to add the following sentence to the end of clause 1.1.3 of section 3.12.4:

"When an attribute with a non-empty [namespace name] is copied, ·namespace fixup· may need to be performed on the resulting information set to ensure that a prefix P is bound to the [namespace name] and the [prefix] of the copied attribute is set to P."

With this change, the WG believes that the issue raised in this bug report is addressed. I'm marking this RESOLVED and CLOSED accordingly.