Does timestamp protocol following thomas's write rule allow non-view-serializable schedules in some cases?

I have come across the following line in a text book (Database System Concepts Textbook by Avi Silberschatz, Henry F. Korth, and S. Sudarshan $6e$) page no. 686: > Thomas’ write rule allows schedules that are not conflict serializable > but are nevertheless correct. Those non-conflict-serializable > schedules allowed satisfy the definition of view serializable > schedules (see example box). What I understood from the above lines is that every schedule generated by timestamp protocol following Thomas's write rule is view serializable. Now let's take the following little schedule: $S: R_1(X), W_2(X), W_1(X)$. This schedule $S$ is allowed under timestamp protocol which follows Thomas's write rule. And serialization order is $R_1(X), W_1(X).$ But I was not able to prove that it is view serializable. Actually I think that it is non-view serializable because, 1. Consider serial order as $T_1, T_2$ Now final value of $X$ is being written by $T_2$. So not equivalent. 2. Next alternative serial order is $T_2, T_1$ here, $R_1(X)$ will read value of $X$ written by $T_1$ not original value which was there before start of both transaction. So this too is not view-equivalent. What is going wrong here? Please help me with this one.