- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 13:57:42 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=12185
--- Comment #13 from Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com> 2011-06-03 13:57:41 UTC ---
Re: the proposal in comment #12. I wonder if the new rule needs to consider
cases where the {type table} is absent. That is, change
4.6 S.{type table} is ·equivalent· to G.{type table}.
to
4.6 S.{type table} and G.{type table} either are both ·absent· or are both
present and ·equivalent·.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Friday, 3 June 2011 13:57:43 UTC