[Bug 2328] Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"? from bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org on 2005-10-04 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from October to December 2005)

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2005 20:41:03 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1EMtax-0002zx-CB@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2328

           Summary: Should "restriction" always imply "subsumption"?
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Keywords: unclassified
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSD Part 1: Structures
        AssignedTo: ht@w3.org
        ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


>From earlier discussion among working group members on restriction/subsumption, 
there seem to be cases where R is derived from B by restriction but there are 
instances allowed by R but not by B. As a concerete example, please see
bug 2205 (http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2205)

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2005 20:41:12 UTC