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

3.4/3.13: should there be a Simply Type Definition of the Ur-Type ?

From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 04:20:18 -0400
Message-ID: <81A48CA1E953D211B11600A0C9E1C1B995B72F@mail.bowstreet.com>
To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>


I thought there used to be a Simple Type Definition of the Ur-Type? Should
there be one in 3.13 parallel to the one for Complex Types in 3.4? Or am I
missing something?

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

Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 04:22:40 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4: why does absent point to definition for null in glossary?"
Previous message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4: {name} of the Ur-Type"
Next in thread: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4/3.13: should there be a Simply Type Definition of the Ur-Type ?"
Maybe reply: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4/3.13: should there be a Simply Type Definition 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