- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 21:20:28 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10882
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2010-09-30 21:20:28 UTC ---
I agree, we should allow implementation-defined subtypes of item(). Saxon's
extension types have traditionally been subtypes of anyAtomic, and there are
definitely cases where this doesn't make much sense.
Such a change might have more consequences than we can immediately foresee, but
having opened the door with function items to a third kind of item, I'm more
confident that the language doesn't fundamentally break if you open things up
at this point.
Michael Kay
--
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 Thursday, 30 September 2010 21:20:30 UTC