http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2947 ------- Additional Comments From davep@iit.edu 2006-02-28 20:41 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Yes. I would prefer to get rid of all mention of a trivial order (and the "null" > order, for that matter). The min/max facets are still well-defined whether the > order is trivial or not. It's just that no value is value if there is a > minExclusive facet on a trivially ordered datatype, for exmaple. No big deal. That would be a change in the "unordered" datatypes; we currently simply prohibit those order-related facets on the "unordered" datatypes--your proposal would allow them (admittedly resulting in a singleton or empty value set for the derived datatype). I don't think it's likely that that will happen at this stage of 1.1. Will look into describing the situation better.Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2006 20:40:07 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 23 October 2007 06:13:39 GMT