Thu, 14 Jul 2005 17:01:51 +0200
On Jul 14, 2005, at 4:55 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> "The only *atomic* fundamental types...."
> Shouldn't that be:
> "The only fundamental datatypes..."
I guess 'atomic' is meant as scalar (not complex) and is orthogonal
to the use of 'fundamental'.
Aren't there also complex fundamental types (implicitly defined
through the use of the infoset
Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer
Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT'