- From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 10:14:14 -0800
- To: "David Fallside" <fallside@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org>, <xmlp-comments@w3.org>
Err, Integer et.al. are all there. Each of the 'DTD types' has a comment
before it that reads:
<!--
For compatibility with XML 1.0 the following element declaration
and
associated complex type definition should NOT be used. It is
provided here for completenes.
-->
The comment only applies to the element decl and type def that
immediately follows the comment.
Am I missing something?
Gudge
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Fallside [mailto:fallside@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: 22 January 2003 10:22
> To: Martin Gudgin
> Cc: w3c-xml-protocol-wg@w3.org; xmlp-comments@w3.org
> Subject: list of SOAP Encoding SImple Types
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The CR version of Part 2 points to the Schema file at
http://www.w3.org/2002/12/soap-encoding. According to the comments
embedded in that Schema, the simple types of the SOAP Encoding are:
duration
dateTime
time
date
gYearMonth
gYear
gMonthDay
gDay
gMonth
boolean
base64Binary
hexBinary
float
double
anyURI
QName
string
normalizedString
token
language
Name
NMTOKEN
NCName
I am surprised _not_ to see types such as Integer in this list, although
Integer (and others) are listed later under a comment that says "For
compatibility with XML 1.0 the following element declaration and
associated complex type definition should NOT be used. It is provided
here for completenes".
Are there errors in the designations of the simple types?
............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 13:14:54 UTC