Re: compound datatype inheritance

>My confusion arises from uncertainty as to what the phrase "as a unit"
>means.  I assume that the result is 1), and that "as a unit" implies
>that, even though only "space-before" is defined as inheriting, the
>current state of the space-before "object" is what is inherited.

You are correct in saying that the space-before "object" is what is
inherited and thus the result is 1).

Note that the space-before "object" has, potentially, had some
"value fixup" in case of inconsistent values (see the <space> datatype
definition in 5.11). It is for this reason that the individual
components are not inherited independently.

>If that is so, is there any functional difference in treating short-form
>compound properties as shorthands _with inheritance capability_, and
>treating the specific forms of an inheritable compound as themselves
>inheritable?