- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:46:51 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3232 ------- Comment #2 from mike@saxonica.com 2008-02-04 23:46 ------- I might mention that I've been having the same problem with the words "type" and "data type" (and "datatype") in my XSLT book; the copy editors have been going crazy trying to get the usage consistent, and in the end I've given up and decided that "data" adds nothing to the sense, so it's been removed everywhere. This seems to work perfectly well once you get used to it. Types partition into complex and simple, simple types partition into union, list, and atomic: there's no room in this hierarchy for another adjective "data". (What do you call a type that isn't a data type?) The most prominent usage of "Datatypes" is of course in the title of part 2, which should probably be "Simple Types".
Received on Monday, 4 February 2008 23:46:57 UTC