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