- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 23:55:25 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=11076
--- Comment #4 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2011-03-07 23:55:25 UTC ---
In the proposal, the phrase "and T1.{type definition} and T2.{type definition}
are valid for the same set of input element information items." seems curious -
I don't think a type definition can be valid for some information items and
invalid for others.
But rather than fix this in the obvious way, I don't think it's helpful to
define equivalence using a condition that isn't actually computable by a
universal Turing machine. Better to stick with the mechanistic definition, and
allow processors to relax it if they are able to. I would suggest wording along
the lines:
T1 and T2 are equivalent if all the following conditions are true:
...
A processor MAY also treat T1 and T2 as equivalent in cases where not all the
above conditions are true, provided it can determine that that T1.{test} and
T2.{test} will always evaluate to the same result for any possible element
information item.
--
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 Monday, 7 March 2011 23:55:27 UTC