5436 2008-01-29 03:00:08 +0000 Editorial: replace 'attributed to' with 'bound to' ? 2009-10-10 01:23:13 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Structures: XSD Part 1 1.1 only Macintosh All CLOSED WONTFIX terminology cluster editorial, noFurtherAction P2 minor --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 18619 0 cmsmcq 2008-01-29 03:00:08 +0000 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. 18626 1 mike 2008-01-29 09:08:23 +0000 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? 28202 2 cmsmcq 2009-10-10 01:22:51 +0000 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)