- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2010 16:04:54 +0000
- To: public-xml-schema-testsuite@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4135
C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com
--- Comment #4 from C. M. Sperberg-McQueen <cmsmcq@blackmesatech.com> 2010-06-04 16:04:54 ---
One problem here is the parallel to circular includes. The spec neither
explicitly licenses nor explicitly forbids either circular inclusion nor
circular redefinition, and implementations differ in whether they allow them or
not.
The interpretation of circular include as legal seems to depend on the idea
that there is a fixed-point semantics for inclusion under which circular
inclusions are perfectly well defined.
The same sort of fixed-point semantics can be applied to circular redefine in
at least some cases. Many people seem to shy away from this as too horrible to
contemplate.
But if the spec is assumed to have silently assumed a fixed-point semantics for
the one, then why not for the other?
--
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 Friday, 4 June 2010 16:04:58 UTC