- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:47:17 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=5267 ------- Comment #1 from frans.englich@telia.com 2007-11-14 08:47 ------- It feels like a change like this can have dramatic effects, in particular on operator binding. Maybe it is as it is, for being somewhat aligned with the next version of Schema? xs:integer is neither a primitive type according to W3C XML Schema 3.2, but it's probably as well listed all over the specs as primitive. I have a vague memory of that either XQuery or F&O explicitly said that xs:integer was considered as a primitive type even though it isn't. In XQuery 1.0, H Glossary (Non-Normative), section xs:anyAtomicType are xs:integer and xs:untypedAtomic mentioned as primitive atomics.
Received on Wednesday, 14 November 2007 08:47:23 UTC