> Dear all
> we need to decide on whether global attributes should be named or
> declared any differently to local ones.
>
> Right now I don't see the need. Gunther suggested all global attributes are
> defined in the attribute UidAttributeGroup. Currently, only uid, uidRef,
> uidRefs and xs:language are global right now.
I think we may have a problem in saying that we'll name global
attributes like local attributes, since we say we'll name local
attributes as if they were elements, and (except for top-level elements)
these are named as properties of an object class. Just like top-level
elements, global elements nominally don't have an object class.
I don't think it would be *hard* to figure out names for global
attributes, but our naming advice so far is insufficient to explain how
to do it.
Regarding UidAttributeGroup, that's certainly a convenient way to
organize global attributes, and we should probably add a rule about
this. Another option, I suppose, would be to have a UBL ur-type from
which every other complex type derives, and put the attributes on that.
But doing this may have unintended consequences or make things ugly.
Eve
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
