W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > May 2012

[Bug 17181] [XPath 3.0] Terminology: "Restricted Union Type"

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 22:15:27 +0000
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1SY2n9-0003Wd-MR@jessica.w3.org>
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17181

--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@gmail.com> 2012-05-25 22:15:27 UTC ---
I've always disliked the term "restricted union type" for just this reason.

Ideally, I'd like a name that evokes what is said in the definition:

[Definition: A restricted union type is an XML Schema union type that satisfies
the following constraints: (1) {variety} is union, (2) the {facets} property is
empty, (3) no type in the transitive membership of the union type has {variety}
list, and (4) no type in the transitive membership of the union type is a type
with {variety} union having a non-empty {facets} property].

To me, the proposed name doesn't do that. I suppose the name should ideally say
something like "no lists, no facets". To me, 'constructed' doesn't say that.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://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 Friday, 25 May 2012 22:15:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:38 UTC