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.
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.
xdt:anyAtomicType is a true subtype of xs:anySimpleType. It is a
supertype for all atomic types (only), whereas xs:anySimpleType
includes union types and list types (such as xs:NMTOKENS, xs:IDREFS
and xs:ENTITIES).
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
--~--