- From: Per Bothner <per@bothner.com>
- Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:43:30 -0800
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
In response to Martin Duerst's: > For example, I don't see any need to have the xdt namespace Jonathan Robie explains the need for the xdt:untypedAtomic type. However, you do not explain why it needs to be in a different namespace than xs:integer. What is wrong with xs:untypedAtomic? Are things so bureaucratic at the W3C that they won't allow you to add a type so the xs namespace? Note this has nothing to do with adding xs:untypedAtomic to XML Schema; it's just a matter of sharing a namespace. -- --Per Bothner per@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
Received on Tuesday, 30 November 2004 19:43:33 UTC