- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 25 May 2000 16:23:36 +0100
- To: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
- Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
You posted the following two questions on 28 April, and received the
reply quoted below. We are currently working through all comments
we've received on XML Schema to ensure they have been adequately dealt
with. Could you confirm that your questions have been answered to
your satisfaction?
> 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.
Thank you
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 Thursday, 25 May 2000 11:23:50 UTC