- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:26:10 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=13399
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2011-09-20 22:26:10 UTC ---
While integrating this, I ran into some other questions.
1. Is there a difference between this set of types:
all simple types whose {variety} is union, provided they satisfy all the
following conditions:
the {facets} property of the union type is empty; and
no type in the transitive membership of the union type has {variety} list; and
no type in the transitive membership of the union type is a type with {variety}
union having a non-empty {facets} property
And this set of types?
a type whose {variety} is _union_,
whose {facets} property is empty,
and whose {member type definitions} consists exclusively
of atomic types and *restricted union types*.
2. In the current document, we use the term [generalized atomic type] in many
places, not just here, and it refers to either an atomic type or a "restricted
union type".
If there *is* a difference between the sets of types in (1) above, do we really
need to have both definitions? And which definition applies in the various
places where we currently reference *generalized atomic 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 Tuesday, 20 September 2011 22:26:12 UTC