- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:49:47 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3232 ------- Comment #8 from davep@iit.edu 2008-02-05 20:49 ------- (In reply to comment #7) > OK, I've got it now. A simple type definition doesn't define a simple type, it > defines a datatype. Silly me. And silly any reader who claims that we make > things unnecessarily complicated. What do you think a complex type definition defines? Do you know what a complex type is? How does that match with what you believe a simple type is? A simple type definition defines a particular subclass of the element class and attribute class (whose instances are elements and attributes respectively), which is what I've been calling a "simple type", *as well as* a datatype. Not true that it doesn't define a simple type: it defines both.
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2008 20:50:02 UTC