- From: MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2003 16:06:42 +0900
- To: "Michael Rys" <mrys@microsoft.com>
- Cc: <public-qt-comments@w3.org>, mm <mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
"Michael, Thank you for your prompt answer. > The latest discussion was that the static analysis is normative as a > lower-bound and implementations could infer more precise types. What is > needed for conformance, I don't know yet. I feel that use of backwards-axes for type inference requires an approach significantly different from that of the formal semantics spec. Such an approach may sometimes lead to tighter types and sometimes lead to looser types. So, I feel uneasy to have normative rules for type inference. Cheers, MURATA Makoto <mmurata@trl.ibm.com>
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2003 03:03:03 UTC