OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: XML Schema datatypes: NaN, lists of union types, [NEL],miscella neous editorial

> From: Arnold, Curt [mailto:Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 1:36 PM
> To: 'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'
> Cc: 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'; 'malaika@us.ibm.com'
> Subject: XML Schema datatypes: NaN, lists of union types, [NEL],
> miscella neous editorial
I will address some of your comments now and others when I have more time.

> 5. Lack of canonical form for hexBinary
> hexBinary would allow either 0FB7, 0fb7, 0Fb7, or 0fB7 for the 16-bit
> integer 4023.  I would recommend that use of the upper case A-F be the
> canonical form.
This one has been added to the list of places where the spec is ambiguous
and needs to be clarified, thanx.

> "Note that a consequence of the above is that, given value space A..."
> I'm not sure what the consequences of this statement in referencing
> specs would be, for example, for the values corresponding to the literal
> "3" in the double, float, and integer value spaces.
Since the value spaces of float, double and integer are disjoint, it follows
("is a consequence..") that the literal "3" these types maps to different
values that are not equatable.

> "for all a and b in the value space, a < b and b < a implies a=b"
> I don't get this one, what would be an example of a value a and b where
> a < b and b < a.
As Ashok has mentioned, the working group is considering changing that
property from antisymmetry to asymmetry (a < b implies not (b < a)), which
in the present context amounts to the same thing but is less likely to
engender comments such as yours (the current formulation is more natural for
relations such as <=).

> "For all atomic datatypes other than string..."
> This seems to contradict the note in section that mentions that
> spaces are allowed in the anyURI lexical space, but discouraged.
I think you might be right, but I'm not sure.  I'll bring this one up with
the WG.  In the end, however, this might not be the kind of thing that we
can correct before going to REC.