On Saturday 02 July 2005 23:17, Dimitre Novatchev wrote:
On 7/3/05, Frans Englich <frans(_dot_)englich(_at_)telia(_dot_)com> wrote:
Hi,
I wonder, what is the difference between the xdt:anyAtomicType and
xs:anySimpleType? It is a type(duh) and hence can code and definitions
depend on it, but other than that, does it have any "effective" impact?
Why does it exist? If it didn't exist, anySimpleType would have to derive
from the imaginary "itemType"; is that the reason?
No. xdt:anyAtomicType is not identical (see below) to xs:anySimpleType.
Can the anyAtomicType be considered a "marker interface" for atomic
values, but that it in practice is an anySimpleType?
Any instance/subtype of xdt:anyAtomicType is an instance/subtype of
xs:anySimpleType but the reverse is not true.
Yes, such kind of relationships emerges as soon one have different types.
In the XML.com article titled "The XPath 2.0 Data Model"[1] there's a
small hint:
"The Data Model document adds five new types to the 19 primitive types
defined in the Part 2 Recommendation: [...] the xdt:anyAtomicType, an
abstract type that plugs a newly-discovered architectural hole [...]"
What was the architectural hole(or where can I read about it), and has it
any relation to my question?
To represent the set of all types, whose instances are atomic (but not
list or union) types.
Yes, good point, missed that. Except for that one(separating it from
union/list types), does there exist any other reason to why anySimpleType
could not be the direct base class of the atomic types?
xdt:anyAtomicType is a true subtype of xs:anySimpleType.
What derivation/inheritage/type is not a "true subtype"?
Cheers,
Frans
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--