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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:32 UTC