- From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: 27 Aug 2002 09:16:14 +0100
- To: neilg@ca.ibm.com
- Cc: w3c-xml-schema-ig@w3.org
neilg@ca.ibm.com writes:
> 1. Is it valid for a <field> to match an element with the ur-type
> definition under any circumstances?
I'd say 'no', because keys are _values_, and only 'real' simple types
have values. Thanks for bringing this up, because it suggests we
should rule out the simple ur-type here as well.
ht
P.S. Please note the the ig is not public, but the comments list is,
so it's not a good idea to send mail to both at the same time.
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 04:16:17 UTC