W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2006

[Bug 2328] Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 20:31:41 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1GbNVN-0003Mq-A4@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2328


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED




------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2006-10-21 20:31 -------
On 20 October 2006, the WG agreed to close this issue without change to
the spec.  The rationale given was that (given an appropriate definition
of subsumption in line with the agreed behavior regarding element 
declarations, value constraints, etc.) yes, restriction should entail
subsumption, and examples like that cited in bug 2205 are correctly
handled (flagged as errors) by the current text of the spec.
Received on Saturday, 21 October 2006 20:31:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:11 GMT