- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 04:36:49 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1705 ------- Comment #19 from jmdyck@ibiblio.org 2006-10-18 04:36 ------- (In reply to comment #18) > The WG spent a long time this evening discussing this bug, without coming to a > conclusion. Well, it sounds like it's getting the attention it deserves, so that's good. > We did come up with a draft definition of "circularity", and on > this definition, your example is not a circularity; moreover, I and > I think several others on the WG believe that this query is legal. My assessment was that if it's legal, then that poses a serious problem for the (formal) specification of its static semantics. Does it seem that way to the WG too?
Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 04:36:57 UTC