[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
XML Schema Part 2 should provide BNF for all primitive types.
- From: Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Steve.Rosenberry@ElectronicSolutionsCo.com
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:18:30 -0800
> but none of these documents actually has the RE that defines a string as
> a valid float value that I was hoping to copy (at least not that I could
You couldn't find them because there is none. And I think the spec
should provide more precise definition of what are valid lexical
representation of primitive types. BNF is certainly a good way to do
Good news is, XML Schema is still a PR. That means there is still a
chance to have them add BNF. So please post your comment to
email@example.com about adding
BNF to the spec. I've already posted one, but the same comment from a
different person should counts.
Currently, the spec describes lexical representation without using any
formal language. For example, you can find the following statement in
the description of "number" type.
> An optional leading sign is allowed. If the sign is omitted, "+" is
> assumed. Leading and trailing zeroes are optional.
OK. I think "0.0" is a valid "number". Since leading zeroes are optional,
it seems to me that the current spec allows ".0" as a valid "number".
There is more, by removing optional trailing zeroes, "." becomes a valid
"number". Really? But why not?
These are happening everywhere in the spec, and much worse in date/time
So please let WG knows your thought.