[dfdl-wg] Annotation complexity

[mike.beckerle at ascentialsoftware.com]

I don't see the problem here.


> 
> An attempt at a picture where only elements have annotations:
> 
> Element A : param=littleendian		
>   SubElement B: type ST
> 						Type T:
> 						  SubElement C:
param:bigendian
> 
> 						Type ST: subtype of T
> 
> What is the param value of element C at A/B/C?
> 

I propose this reasoning.

Local element definition has highest precedence.
Then type of element including subtype-based inheritance.
Then lexical scope.

So the param value of element C is bigEndian. To me this is clearly correct.

However, I think the type names T and ST better reflect that these include
representation information otherwise the user writing the XSD for A with
subelement B will be surprised.

E.g., Type T could be MainframeCobolComp3 and type ST could be
MainframeCobolComp3_8_2 meaning with restrictions to 8 digits and 2
fractional digits. The point is that these type names should reflect that
these types include representation matters, otherwise why wouldn't someone
use them in a context where they think they still have control of the
byteOrder.

...mikeb