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 2734 - Simple type property values for ordinary built-in types
Summary: Simple type property values for ordinary built-in types
Status: CLOSED LATER
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-01-20 17:59 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2006-01-20 17:59:45 UTC
The value of the {annotations} property for ordinary built-in types is either 
not specified, underspecified or uncorrectly specified.

Currently the text refers to an appendix for the definition of these built-in 
types. One can interpret this as saying the property values are all determined 
by the referenced appendix. One can also interpret this as being silent about 
those vlues (as property values for other built-in types are clearly stated in 
4.1.6 tableaux).

The "refer to the appendix" interpretation is taken, then the value is still 
not clearly specified. {annotations} contain element information items. If a 
processor chooses to expose all infoset properties of such EIIs, then it's not 
clear what values certain properties have. e.g. [base uri]. Also one can trace 
back to the containing document information item. It's not clear from the 
appendix what values this DII should have for its properties.

Given that it's hard to describe and implement the annotations values (using 
the "appendix" view) and such annotations really don't provide any benefit, an 
obvious solution to this problem is to clearly state, in the main text, that 
{annotations} for these built-in types is an empty sequence.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-20 23:18:02 UTC
At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg,
the Working Group discussed this issue.  While there was rough
consensus in favor of classifying it a desideratum,, in the end
the Working Group decided not to take further action on this
issue in XML Schema 1.1.  One member (IBM) signaled that they had
strong reservations about not acting on this proposal.

This issue should have been mark as RESOLVED / LATER at that
time, but apparently was not.  I am marking it that way now, to
reduce confusion.