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

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

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Apr 2000 10:36:39 +0100
To: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bln1ya7o8.fsf@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com> writes:

> 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?

This is a tricky issue.  The ur-type is neither simple nor complex.
What's given in 3.4 is what it looks like as the base of a complex
type definition.  There's no way to show what it looks like as the
base of a simple type definition, or rather, that would simply be a
simple type definition with no values for any of the properties, which
would not be terribly helpful.

I agree the prose explaining all this is less than satisfactory.

  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 05:36:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:52 UTC