W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2001

RE: Simple types: Part 1 versus Part 2

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@kp.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 09:29:35 -0800
Message-Id: <376E771642C1D2118DC300805FEAAF43014BA928@pars-exch-1.ca.kp.org>
To: "'Helena Cavanagh'" <helena.cavanagh@usa.net>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Helena Cavanagh [SMTP:helena.cavanagh@usa.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:39 AM
> To:	www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> Subject:	Simple types: Part 1 versus Part 2 
> 
> Dear editors,
> 
> I am reading the specification for Simple Type Definition Schema
> Components
> and am confused by some inconsistencies between Part 1 and Part 2 of the
> XML
> Schema specification.
> 
> --------------------------------
> LISTS
> 
> Part 1 - Section 5.12 
> 
> "If the {variety} is list: 
> The {_item type_ definition} must have a {variety} of atomic or _UNION_ "
> 
> 
> Part 2 - Section 5.1.2 Derivation by List
> 
> "A list datatype must be derived from an atomic or a _LIST_ datatype,
> known as
> the _itemType_ of the list datatype."
> 
Thank you...yes, that was a serious typo, it should be UNION type.
> --------------------------------
> UNIONS
> 
> Part 1 - Section 5.12
> "If the {variety} is union:
> The {item type definition}[*] must have {variety} of _atomic or list_"
> 
> 
> Part 2 - Section 5.1.3 Derivation by Union
> 
> "A union datatype can be derived from two or more _atomic, list or other
> UNION_ datatypes, known as the _memberTypes_ of that union datatype."
> 
> Is UNION missing in Part 1?
> 
Yes, UNION is missing from part 1.

> [*] should be {member type definitions}
> 
and yes, the "{item type defn}" was a typo and should be "{membr type
defn}".

thanx for catching these inconsistencies.

pvb
Received on Monday, 22 January 2001 12:57:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:49 GMT