2603 2005-12-14 22:42:23 +0000 Align text on anySimpleType mediating between anyType and simple types 2008-03-08 14:59:50 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Linux CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 minor --- 1 cmsmcq cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 7446 0 cmsmcq 2005-12-14 22:42:23 +0000 In section 3.14.7 of Structures, there is a paragraph reading The simple ur-type definition is the root of the simple type definition hierarchy, and as such mediates between the other simple type definitions, which all eventually trace back to it via their {base type definition} properties, and the ur-type definition, which is its {base type definition}. This is why the simple ur-type definition is exempted from the first clause of Simple Type Definition Properties Correct (§3.14.6), which would otherwise bar it because of its derivation from a complex type definition and absence of {variety}. In section 4.1.6 of Datatypes, the corresponding paragraph reads: The definition of anySimpleType is the root of the Simple Type Definition hierarchy, and as such mediates between the other simple type definitions, which all eventually trace back to it via their {base type definition} properties, and thus to the definition of anyType, which is its {base type definition}. These need to be aligned. First, Structures needs to change to use the name 'anySimpleType', and second, Datatypes needs to restore the sentence structure so it makes sense. As far as I can tell, the damage was done when this paragraph was introduced, at the time we introduced adding anyAtomicType to the spec. I believe this is purely editorial. 7449 1 ht 2005-12-15 12:10:17 +0000 I've fixed this, now reads The definition of anySimpleType is the root of the Simple Type Definition hierarchy, and as such mediates between the other simple type definitions, which all eventually trace back to it via their {base type definition} properties, and the definition of anyType, which is its {base type definition}. Diff is in dg b2603 I'm assuming this doesn't need review, so I've moved it all the way to 'needsPub', but MSM may wish to direct it elsewhere. 7513 2 cmsmcq 2005-12-17 01:56:54 +0000 The change proposal described in comment 1 was considered, amended, and approved on 16 December 2005. The change was integrated into the status quo document 16 December 2005.