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

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.

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/