RE: 3.4/3.13: should there be a Simply Type Definition of the Ur- Type ? from James Tauber on 2000-04-28 (www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org from April to June 2000)

From: James Tauber <JTauber@bowstreet.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:40:52 -0400
To: "'ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk'" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <81A48CA1E953D211B11600A0C9E1C1B995B734@mail.bowstreet.com>

> I agree the prose explaining all this is less than satisfactory.

I get it totally now that you have explained to me, which seems to suggest
that an additional sentence or two in the prose could do a great deal.

James

Received on Friday, 28 April 2000 05:43:14 UTC