RE: Is xdt:anyAtomicType itself atomic?

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.

	- Paul

Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 21:48:06 UTC