This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2032 - R-054: Request for clarification of ur-type
Summary: R-054: Request for clarification of ur-type
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Structures: XSD Part 1 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Henry S. Thompson
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-07 21:08 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-07 21:08:45 UTC
Given the following definitions from the Structures spec:

"[Definition:] A distinguished ur-type definition is present in each XML 
Schema, serving as the root of the type definition hierarchy for that schema. 
The ur-type definition, whose name is anyType, has the unique characteristic 
that it can function as a complex or a simple type definition, according to 
context. Specifically, restrictions of the ur-type definition can themselves be 
either simple or complex type definitions."

and

"Each simple type definition, whether built-in (that is, defined in [XML 
Schemas: Datatypes]) or user-defined, is a restriction of some particular 
simple base type definition. For the built-in primitive types, this is the 
simple version of the ur-type definition, whose name is anySimpleType."

Then:

Is the ur-type one type or two types? 
From the first paragraph, the ur-type appears to be one type, with the name 
anyType. But from the second paragraph, anySimpleType is a version of the ur-
type. Does this mean that ur-type is a group of types, which includes both 
anyType and anySimpleType?

Is it "ur-type" or "anyType" that can function as a complex or a simple type 
definition? Or both? 
If "anyType" can act as a simpleType, then is the following valid?

<attribute name="att" type="anyType"/>
Or is anyType considered to be the "complex version" of the ur-type definition, 
and it can only act as a complex type?

See Issue 2 from the following mail:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2001JulSep/0121.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-07 21:09:22 UTC
Proposed response from Henry Thompson (to be discussed within WG):
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jan/0065.html 

Discussed and resolved at the Feb. f2f. Henry Thompson to draft erratum 
reflecting his proposal (see above). Paul Biron to check the datatypes spec for 
potential changes.

Discussed at several concalls.

Final proposed erratum
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Nov/0004.html
was approved (assuming an amendment to the S4S) at the Nov. 7 concall.

Erratum E1-22 added