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: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:40:52 -0400
Message-ID: <81A48CA1E953D211B11600A0C9E1C1B995B734@mail.bowstreet.com>
To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

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

I get it totally now that you have explained to me, which seems to suggest
that an additional sentence or two in the prose could do a great deal.

James

Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 05:43:14 GMT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: James Tauber: "4.3.3: should "anyAttribute" have a "processContents" attribute?"
Previous message: Henry S. Thompson: "Re: 3.4/3.13: should there be a Simply Type Definition of the Ur-Type ?"
In reply to: [ message archived in another list or period ]

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