James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com> writes: > 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"? No particular reason - should probably be 'absent'. > I assume that anonymous complex types in general have "absent" as their > {name} or is this not true? Correct. ht -- Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 04:22:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:46 GMT