Proposed fix for DR 10-0016 ("MCE: Core Concepts")

Jesper Lund Stocholm jesper.stocholm at
Tue Jul 6 22:09:23 CEST 2010

Hi all,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Rae [mailto:Chris.Rae at]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:21 PM
> To: Jesper Lund Stocholm; Alex Brown;
e-SC34-WG4 at
> Subject: RE: Proposed fix for DR 10-0016 ("MCE: Core Concepts")
> Hi guys - I think that we're probably all on the same page with regard
> to subsumption. Its functionality is already covered by other
> mechanisms, and it's hard to implement as written.
> I see Alex's point (re. steering clear of normative provisions which
> rely on "meaning"). I wonder if we could say that applications can
> either add attributes in new namespaces to existing elements, or
> entire elements in new namespaces, but then give an informative note
> saying it's a good idea not to create the entire element again unless
> its meaning has changed?

But isn't this the essence of Alex's complaint - that Microsoft Office
2010 adds new attributes from foreign namespaces to known elements? (a
good example of this is the new attribute on the C-element in
SpreadsheetML (I have forgot the name of it - is it dXy or something?) -
thereby invalidating the original element content wrt the original
schema definition?

> If there's general agreement that subsumption should be removed from
> the standard, I can submit a defect report through Ecma to have it
> removed.

>From the top of my mind, it sounds like a good idea to me too.

Med venlig hilsen / Best regards

Jesper Lund Stocholm

CIBER Danmark A/S
Mobil: +45 3094 5570
Email: jesper.stocholm at

More information about the sc34wg4 mailing list