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 2827 - RQ-143 Question about assessment outcome for attributes (AssessmentOfAtts)
Summary: RQ-143 Question about assessment outcome for attributes (AssessmentOfAtts)
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: Other All
: P4 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
Whiteboard: thimble, easy
Keywords: unclassified
: 2263 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-02-11 00:57 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2007-03-28 21:12 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:


Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-02-11 00:57:45 UTC
This issue was originally reported by Richard Tobin.

Assessment Outcome (Attribute) only applies to attributes that have
been assessed. Since there is no difference between assessment and
strict assessment for an attribute, an attribute that has not been
strictly assessed will never have a [validation attempted] property,
so it is impossible for the [validation attempted] property to be
none. Similarly the [validity] property can never be notKnown.

This seems odd. An attribute with no type declaration cannot be
assessed (Schema-Validity Assessment (Attribute)), so it will never
have any PSVI properties, whereas it would be natural for it to have
[validation attempted] = none and [validity] = notKnown.

See the following mail:
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-24 16:17:52 UTC
Is this related to bug 2578?
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2006-11-05 01:29:36 UTC
*** Bug 2263 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-03-28 20:22:42 UTC
The Working Group discussed this at our face to face meeting, today, 
28 March.  There was some sentiment in favor of the proposition that
no actual bug or problem has been reported here; others in the WG
were inclined to agree with the commentator that the situation is
strange.  In the end, though, there was no consensus on any change to the
spec.  We are accordingly closing this issue as WONTFIX.

Richard, as the originator of the issue, we ask that you change its
status to reflect your agreement or disagreement with this disposition:
change the status to CLOSED if you are willing to accede to the
WONTFIX resolution, or to REOPENED if you wish to record a formal appeal.
Comment 4 Richard Tobin for XML Core WG 2007-03-28 21:12:58 UTC
I still think this is strange, but I have no interest in pursuing it.