The Aug 3 2007 structures draft (I.e. last call candidate) says:

[Definition:]  Except for a distinguished ·ur-type definition·, every ·type definition· is, by construction, either a ·restriction· or an ·extension· of some other type definition. The graph of these relationships forms a tree known as the Type Definition Hierarchy.

and also

[Definition:]  A special complex type definition, (>>referred to in earlier versions of this specification as 'the ur-type definition'<<) whose name is anyType in the XSDL namespace, is present in each ·XSDL schema·. The definition of anyType serves as default type definition for element declarations whose XML representation does not specify one.

I seem to recall that we all agreed on this, but reading it now it seems confusing and contradictory.  When we say that ur-type definition was a term used in earlier versions of the specification we strongly imply that it's no longer being used.  In fact, the term is defined immediately above, and is widely used.  If what we mean is "the term ur-type definition used to be used for two things, one of which is that complex type definition, but now it's only used for one thing", then we should say that.  If that's not the case, then I would think the text between the >>....<< should be deleted entirely.

FWIW:  while I think it would be desirable in principle to fix something like this before going to last call, I don't think it's essential.  It's (at worst) close enough to editorial that I'd be comfortable seeing it addressed most anytime in the process.  Thank you.

Noah