[Bug 3235] Acyclicity of union type definitions

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3235





------- Comment #1 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-09-19 03:53 -------
Thank you; yes, the discussion does assume that the relation between a
union and its member types is acyclic (or, equivalently, that no union
is a member of its own transitive membership).

This is explicitly required by the Schema Representation Constraint: 
Simple Type Definition Representation OK in section 3.16.3 of part 1 
(Structures) of XSDL 1.1.  

It's not clear to me how Structures section 3.16 and Datatypes
section 4.1 have gotten out of synch again, after a long and trying
effort to reconcile them.  But it seems clear that they need to
be reconciled once more.

Received on Wednesday, 19 September 2007 03:53:47 UTC