- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:01:18 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5276 ------- Comment #2 from ht@inf.ed.ac.uk 2008-01-25 10:01 ------- (In reply to comment #1) > RESOLUTION: Proposal, drop clause 4.3.2 and add requirement that the nearest > ancestor of type extension or restriction is restriction (or the basetype is > xs:anyType) in section 3.3.3. Saying "the basetype is xs:anytype" renders the whole thing complete toothless: Most complex type definitions have xs:anytype as their base. Surely you meant to say "is restriction, with a basetype _other_ than xs:anyType". I would support that (I thought at first that's what was meant, and was preparing to congratulate you all on a very clever solution!), but will strongly oppose the resolution as written.
Received on Friday, 25 January 2008 10:01:25 UTC