- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:26:43 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4189
--- Comment #2 from Michael Dyck <jmdyck@ibiblio.org> 2008-10-25 19:26:43 ---
I've discovered another bug in the 'union interpretation' rule.
Consider the case:
define type TN1 { T1 }
define type TN2 extends TN1 { T2 }
define type TN3 restricts TN2 { T3 }
The union interpretation of TN1 should be:
T1 | (T1,T2) | T3
but the rule results in:
T1 | (T1,(T2|T3))
i.e.
T1 | (T1,T2) | (T1,T3)
--
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 Saturday, 25 October 2008 19:26:55 UTC