[Bug 11713] [XPath 3.0] Rules for union types


--- Comment #10 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-05-04 09:08:23 UTC ---
Re comment #9, "a union type that is directly derived from xs:anySimpleType"
isn't actually a precise statement of the subset of union types we want to
name, because that subset also includes unions that have list types in their
membership. If we use XSD 1.1 terminology, the pertinent set is that containing

(a) all simple types whose {variety} is atomic

(b) all simple types whose {variety} is union, provided they satisfy all the
following conditions:

(b.1) the {facets} property of the union type is empty

(b.2) no type in the .transitive membership. of the union type has {variety}

(b.3) no type in the .transitive membership. of the union type is a type with
{variety} union having a non-empty {facets} property

[Explanation: (b) defines the set of union types where every valid instance of
any of the .basic member types. is an atomic value that is also a valid
instance of the union type.]

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 Wednesday, 4 May 2011 09:08:30 UTC