Lists Home |
Date Index |
> Because the REC says they can:
Thanks for the link Henry-- I kind of figured that was the case because
it seemed very intuitive. Though it didn't appear in the example, I
figured that if one value had been nonNegativeInteger and another
integer (and both values were positive) then they should be comparable.
I remember reading something somewhere about comparability for XS
datatypes (maybe in that spec) but didn't have time to look for it.
"Values of differing type can only be equal if one type is derived
from the other, and the value is in the value space of both."
This explains why Xerces and XSV allow comparison of anySimpleType and
xs:string-- but it shows that they are inconsistent in not allowing
comparison between anySimpleType and xs:integer.
"The simple ur-type definition is a special restriction of the ur-type
definition whose name is anySimpleType in the XML Schema namespace.
anySimpleType can be considered as the ·base type· of all ·primitive·
datatypes. anySimpleType is considered to have an unconstrained
lexical space and a ·value space· consisting of the union of the
·value space·s of all the ·primitive· datatypes and the set of all
lists of all members of the ·value space·s of all the ·primitive·
xs:integer is a derived type from the primitive xs:decimal which
according to the above should be considered derived from anySimpleType.
(I know you know all this, I am just putting it here for completeness)
Hence the simple ur-type and xs:integer should be comparable but none of
the three implementations tested allow it. So, should it not be
considered a bug?