- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 18:20:39 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3232 ------- Comment #1 from davep@iit.edu 2006-05-09 18:20 ------- (In reply to comment #0) > In 2.6.1.2, the second paragraph is an example of a residual use of the > word "type" rather than "datatype". This also occurs in constructs such as > "base type" and "item type". It's not clear whether the spec is trying to > make a distinction between the two words. "Union type" and "union datatype" > are used apparently interchangeably. We have tried in 1.1 to remove the unmodified word 'type' from running text, but not from the names of schema component properties (which would be a gratuitous change to the component structure, a thing roundly hated by many implementers who use it to define their APIs and UIs). Probably some in text have been missed.
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2006 18:20:51 UTC