At 03:23 PM 12/11/01 -0500, Eve L. Maler wrote:
>I just realized something: Conditions does *not* have an abstract type. I
>thought we wanted to force people to write an extension schema so that
>their "mustUnderstand"-type semantics would be forced to be documented at
>least a little. But I may be behind the times. Can this question be
>added to the issue below? Thanks.
Okay, I'm starting to get brain cramp. Ignore; <Condition> (singular)
*does* have an abstract type. Sorry.
--
Eve Maler +1 781 442 3190
Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center eve.maler @ sun.com
