Re: 3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type from Henry S. Thompson on 2000-04-28 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from April to June 2000)

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 09:22:11 +0100
To: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bhfcmbpos.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>

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 UTC