- From: Paul J. Lucas <plucas@bea.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:42:48 -0800 (PST)
- To: Michael Rys <mrys@microsoft.com>
- cc: public-qt-comments@w3.org
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Michael Rys wrote: > Xdt:anyAtomicType is the abstract atomic type and thus should be > considered atomic in a general case (function signatures and implied > atomization), but is special (no cast) since it is abstract. OK, that begs the question: can it be generalized? E.g., given: T = xs:integer | xs:string Is T atomic? More general still: is every type T, composed only by alternation of only atomic types, atomic? - Paul > > -----Original Message----- > > From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:public-qt-comments- > > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Paul J. Lucas > > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 3:32 PM > > To: public-qt-comments@w3.org > > Subject: Is xdt:anyAtomicType itself atomic? > > > > > > My understanding is that xdt:anyAtomicType type is defined as > > the union of all atomic types and that atomic types are only > > those such as xs:integer, xs:string, etc. > > > > It would therefore seem to be the case that xdt:anyAtomicType > > itself is not "atomic." > > > > This makes perfect sense to me, but it is correct? Or should > > xdt:anyAtomicType itslef also be considered atomic? > > > > - Paul > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 02:42:57 UTC