- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 18:45:26 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6228 --- Comment #3 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2008-11-14 18:45:26 --- >Amusing aside: unsignedByte is not derived from short, but I believe it is a restriction. Good point. I think there is a bug there. The sentence immediately before the formal definition says "By 'restriction' is meant the definition of a datatype whose ·value space· and ·lexical space· are subsets of those of its ·base type·." which implies that a type cannot be a restriction of anything other than its base type (that is, it is an intensional rather than extensional relationship). But the definition that follows suggests a purely extensional relationship. I don't think it matters much, because having defined the term ·restriction·, we only use it four times (within the middle dots), on one occasion incorrectly (where it is referring to restriction as a process, a method of derivation, rather than as a relationship between two types). But it's certainly a classic case where we are using language that looks formal but are actually pretty fuzzy. -- 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, 14 November 2008 18:45:35 UTC