- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 08:25:53 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=17252 --- Comment #1 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2012-05-31 08:25:52 UTC --- If we decide to leave the spec technically as is, I propose to make editorial clarifications as follows: (1) change 3(b) from "The two nodes are both annotated as having simple content or both nodes are annotated as having complex content." to "Either both nodes are annotated as having simple content or both nodes are annotated as having complex content. For this purpose "simple content" means either a simple type or a complex type with simple content; complex content means a complex type whose variety is mixed, element-only, or empty." (2) change the sub-bullets of 3(d) to read: * Both element nodes are annotated as having simple content (as defined in 3(b) above), and the typed value of $i1 is deep-equal to the typed value of $i2. * Both element nodes have a type annotation that is a complex type with variety element-only, and each child element of $i1 is deep-equal to the corresponding child element of $i2. * Both element nodes have a type annotation that is a complex type with variety mixed, and the sequence $i1/(*|text()) is deep-equal to the sequence $i2/(*|text()). * Both element nodes have a type annotation that is a complex type with variety empty. I'm not sure if we also need to clarify what "corresponding" means in the second bullet. One might argue that if the content model uses "any" rather than "sequence" then the correspondence should be by name rather than by position. -- 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 Thursday, 31 May 2012 08:26:00 UTC