W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2000

3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type

From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:16:55 -0400
Message-ID: <81A48CA1E953D211B11600A0C9E1C1B995B72D@mail.bowstreet.com>
To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

Why is the {name} of the Ur-Type (as a Complex Type) in 3.4 shown as "Not
specified"? How is this different from "absent"?

I assume that anonymous complex types in general have "absent" as their
{name} or is this not true?

James
--
James Tauber
jtauber@bowstreet.com
Director XML Technology
Bowstreet www.bowstreet.com

Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 04:19:21 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: James Tauber: "3.4: why does absent point to definition for null in glossary?"
Previous message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.2: why are {min occurs}/{max occurs} optional in Attribute Declaration?"
Next in thread: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type"
Maybe reply: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type"
Maybe reply: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT