2337 2005-10-10 15:50:12 +0000 Add {context} property to simple type definition in Datatypes 2008-03-05 16:12:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 2335 1 ht cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6671 0 ht 2005-10-10 15:50:15 +0000 6926 1 sandygao 2005-10-27 16:13:07 +0000 Discussed at 2005-10-21 telecon [1]. A few amendments were proposed and accepted by the WG. Resolution: Proposal accepted unanimously as amended. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Oct/0019.html 7406 2 cmsmcq 2005-12-12 20:14:45 +0000 There appears to me to be an error in the text approved by the WG at its meeting of 21 October. The proposal acted on there reads in part The {context} property is only relevant for anonymous type definitions, for which its value is the component in which this type definition appears as the value of a property, e.g. {item type definition} or {base type definition}. But there are some anonymous type definitions which will not have a {context} property, namely definitions shadowed by a redefinition. Such definitions have no name, and thus would seem to qualify as anonymous, but we agreed in Edinburgh that they would not acquire a context property, indeed that no global / top-level components would have a context property. I believe the paragraph would be correct if it read The {context} property is only relevant for type definitions local to some other definition or declaration, for which its value is the component in which this type definition appears as the value of a property, e.g. {item type definition} or {base type definition}. This has the disadvantage of being clunkier: we are punished for our failure to define simple terminology for global vs. local components. (I would change the status of the issue to reopened, except that it is already in that status, for reasons which don't seem to have been recorded.) 7407 3 cmsmcq 2005-12-12 20:28:26 +0000 Closer examination of the Edinburgh minutes shows my memory was at fault: they say clearly that redefined components will get a {context} property pointing to their redefiner. The state of affairs I was remembering was an earlier stage of the proposal finally adopted. The text approved by the WG does not appear to me to be particularly clear, and it assumes silently that only one other component will ever have an anonymous type definition as the value of one of its properties, which seems error prone. But it is not, as far as I can tell, in error. 7510 4 cmsmcq 2005-12-17 01:51:52 +0000 Integrated into status quo documents, 8 December 2005. 19306 5 davep 2008-03-05 16:12:38 +0000 Although no formal request for closure was made, since the reporter as a member of the WG was aware of the resolution of this bug over two years ago, I'm marking it closed.