<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.4"
          urlbase="https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/"
          
          maintainer="sysbot+bugzilla@w3.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>2845</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2006-02-11 01:42:26 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>RQ-141 Add the abstract datatype anyAtomicType (anyAtomicType)</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2008-03-08 15:04:14 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>1</classification_id>
          <classification>Unclassified</classification>
          <product>XML Schema</product>
          <component>Datatypes: XSD Part 2</component>
          <version>1.1 only</version>
          <rep_platform>Other</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>All</op_sys>
          <bug_status>CLOSED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard></status_whiteboard>
          <keywords>resolved</keywords>
          <priority>P2</priority>
          <bug_severity>normal</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>---</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</assigned_to>
          
          
          <qa_contact name="XML Schema comments list">www-xml-schema-comments</qa_contact>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>8210</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="C. M. Sperberg-McQueen">cmsmcq</who>
    <bug_when>2006-02-11 01:42:26 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>This issue was originally reported by XML Schema WG.

Should we add anyAtomicType as requested by QT? Should we add it as
the supertype of all atomic types or as a union of all atomic types?

This item was discussed in the meeting of 2003-09-18
(http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/09/xml-schema-ftf-minutes.html)

This item was discussed in the meeting of 2003-09-26
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Oct/0001.html)

This item was discussed in the meeting of 2003-10-02
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Oct/0007.html)

This item was discussed, and phase-1 agreement was reached, in the
meeting of 2004-03-19
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2004Mar/0072.html).

...

The datatype has been added to the Datatypes spec, so this requirement has
been discharged.  See also bug 1852 and related bugs, which relate to
specific problems that arose when aligning Datatypes and Structures as
a result of this change.</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>