Qualified attributes (was:

[MURATA Makoto (FAMILY Given)]

> BTW, in Czech we discussed this proposal during comment period on DIS
> but we finally withdraw this comment before ballot because we didn't
> want to break compatibility with ECMA and existing documents. But Strict
> is breaking compatibility so change can be made safely.

(Not wearing the convenor hat)

I found the inconsistency after the ballot was closed.
I also think that OOXML is very inconsistent here.  

If I am not mistaken, the following XSD schemas specify 
qualified attributes.

	shared-customXmlDataProperties.xsd
	shared-customXmlSchemaProperties.xsd
	shared-math.xsd
	shared-relationshipReference.xsd
	vml-main.xsd
	vml-officeDrawing.xsd
	wml.xsd

Some of them specify attributeFormDefault="qualified" at the schema
element.  (shared-customXmlDataProperties.xsd,
shared-customXmlSchemaProperties.xsd, shared-math.xsd, and wml.xsd)

Others specify form="qualified" at the attribute element.  (vml-main.xsd
vml-officeDrawing.xsd)

Yet others rely on the default value "qualified" for top-level 
attribute declarations.  (shared-relationshipReference.xsd)

Will Chezh propose a defect report about this inconsistency?  
I would welcome it very much.

Cheers,
Makoto