On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Michael Kay wrote: > No, it's not defined as the union of all atomic types, it is defined as the > supertype of all atomic types. It's the parent type of all atomic types, in > the same way as anySimpleType is the parent of all simple types ... According to the Formal Semantics, section 3.4.1, Predefined Types, xs:anySimpleType *is* defined as the union of all primitive atomic types and xdt:anyAtomicType *is* defined as the union of atomic types. My question was not about the definition of xdt:anyAtomicType since that is quite clearly defined as a union as cited above. My question was about what "atomic" means and whether xdt:anyAtomicType, as defined, is considered "atomic." On Tue, 9 Nov 2004, Michael Rys wrote: > XQuery's type system and the subtype hierarchy are based on named types. > A named union type in that system is defined as being a subtype of > xs:simpleType and not a subtype of xs:anyAtomicType. So in that respect > the type itself is not atomic. That, to me, quite clearly says that xdt:anyAtomicType is not itself atomic. It would be nice if the two of you agreed. - PaulReceived on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:48:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:57:02 UTC