https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=19504 --- Comment #9 from Tim Mills <tim@cbcl.co.uk> --- (In reply to comment #6) > There are plenty of other cases where the extent of a type P is clearly a > subset of the extent of another type S, but P is not substitutable for S. > For example, the pair (P=xs:unsignedByte, S=xs:int), or the pair > (P=string(length<5), S=string(length<10)) Agreed, this situation is > undesirable (and in the case of the integer subtypes, makes them fairly > unusable), but it's a consequence of the original decision to go with "named > typing" and I think we have to live with it. To be clear, the 'matches' judgement does not hold for the sort of pairings you are describing here. The unsigned byte value B does not match xs:int. However, it does hold that all values which match union(P,Q) also match union(P,Q,R). I am increasingly convinced that the decision made for XSD doesn't make a great deal of sense for XQuery. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the QA Contact for the bug.Received on Saturday, 13 October 2012 19:17:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:40 UTC