W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2008

[Bug 3232] Type versus Datatype

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:49:47 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1JMUjj-0003K0-7i@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #8 from davep@iit.edu  2008-02-05 20:49 -------
(In reply to comment #7)
> OK, I've got it now. A simple type definition doesn't define a simple type, it
> defines a datatype. Silly me. And silly any reader who claims that we make
> things unnecessarily complicated.

What do you think a complex type definition defines?  Do you know what a
complex type is?  How does that match with what you believe a simple type is?

A simple type definition defines a particular subclass of the element class and
attribute class (whose instances are elements and attributes respectively),
which is what I've been calling a "simple type", *as well as* a datatype.  Not
true that it doesn't define a simple type:  it defines both.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 20:50:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:07 UTC