Re: list of SOAP Encoding SImple Types

On Wednesday, Jan 22, 2003, at 12:21 US/Eastern, David Fallside wrote:
>
> I am surprised _not_ to see types such as Integer in this list, 
> although
> Integer (and others) are listed later under a comment that says "For
> compatibility with XML 1.0 the following element declaration and 
> associated
> complex type definition should NOT be used. It is provided here for
> completenes".
>
> Are there errors in the designations of the simple types?
>
The other types are there, further down the document. The comment 
applies only to the single element following it (the comment is 
repeated for several elements - all those whose type is normally 
restricted to attributes in XML 1.0). I don't think there's a problem.

Regards,
Marc.

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.