1996 2005-09-07 12:40:04 +0000 the [schema default] property is half-useless 2007-04-16 16:39:59 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only PC Windows XP RESOLVED FIXED http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#a-schema_default medium, easy unclassified P4 normal --- 4004 1 ht w3c-xml-schema-wg www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 5778 0 ht 2005-09-07 12:40:05 +0000 As specified, it gets a value when an Attribute Declaration has a value constraint but not when an Attribute Use has one. Either we should 1) Deprecate this in 1.0 and remove it from 1.1 (what use is it, anyway -- why is it here?); 2) Add a Note about its half-brokenness; 3) 'fix' it, pbly by moving it under Complex Type Defn PSVI contributions and folding in Attribute Uses. 5779 1 ht 2005-09-07 12:54:23 +0000 Turns out it's there because in 2000 there was a [default] property on attributes in early drafts of the Infoset REC (e.g. http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-xml-infoset-20000726#infoitem.attribute) 12385 2 cmsmcq 2006-10-11 02:55:33 +0000 Looking at this, I see two relatively easy solutions, one relatively easy half-solution, and one harder solution: 1 remove this property entirely from both elements and attributes (easy) 2 change the relevant paragraph in section 3.2.5 (Attribute Declaration Information Set Contributions) from Also, if and only if the declaration has a {value constraint}, the item has a property: PSVI Contributions for attribute information items [schema default] The {lexical form} of the declaration's {value constraint}. to Also, if and only if the declaration, or the Attribute Use to which the item was attributed, has a {value constraint}, the item has a property: PSVI Contributions for attribute information items [schema default] The {lexical form} of the {value constraint}. (easy) 3 Add a note to the attribute flavor of this property, noting that it doesn't appear when the value constraint is on the attribute use instead of the attribute declaration, and thus may not be useful in some situations. (easy, but not a full solution) 4 (in Henry's words) 3) 'fix' it, pbly by moving it under Complex Type Defn PSVI contributions and folding in Attribute Uses. (harder, mostly because I don't know where Henry had in mind to move it to). Of these, 1 or 2 seems most satisfactory to me. Two questions arise which might help us choose between them: (1) does anyone currently use this property, who would be inconvenienced if it went away in 1.1? (2) do people agree that the change in approach 2 suffices to make the property no longer half-broken? 13007 3 sandygao 2006-11-22 05:37:45 +0000 Proposal: to adopt option (2), with some wording changes. Resolution: adopted at 2006-10-17 telecon.