W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qt-comments@w3.org > March 2004

RE: [F&O] XSCH-FO-008 Casting and constructor fidelity

From: Ashok Malhotra <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 09:11:22 -0800
Message-ID: <EDB607C8AC991F40BE646533A1A673E8019B7EAA@RED-MSG-42.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Xan Gregg" <xan.gregg@jmp.com>, <public-qt-comments@w3.org>

Thank you for your comments.  We have taken these, and other, comments
on casting and construction into account and revised the wording.  We
hope you will find these changes satisfactory.

All the best, Ashok

-----Original Message-----
From: public-qt-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-qt-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Xan Gregg
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 7:21 AM
To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
Subject: [F&O] XSCH-FO-008 Casting and constructor fidelity


Dear Colleagues,

This comment pertains to the 25 December 2003 internal WD of XQuery 1.0
and XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators, as provided to our WG [1].

[1] 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-wg/2004Feb/0000.html

Xan Gregg, on behalf of the XML Schema Working Group
----------------------------------------------------

XSCH-FO-008 Casting and constructor fidelity (5.1, 17.6)

We are confused regarding the definitions of casting and construction
and how they appeal to each other and to XML Schema.  Accordingly, we
have the following largely-editorial suggestions:

1) add more detail about the raising of errors during construction. The
only error indication we see is:

      If the value passed to a constructor is illegal for the
      datatype to be constructed, an error is raised [invalid
      value for constructor].

It's not clear to us if this also applies if the value is a string,
which is otherwise discussed in the paragraph following the cited
statement.

2) in 5.1 and elsewhere where schema validation is appealed to, it
should be clear that the result is a value in the value space
corresponding to  the input lexical form.

3) in 17.6 "validated as a lexical value of the target type" should be
brought better into line with 5.1 and Schema Datatypes ("lexical form"
preferred and consistent whitespace handling suggested).

4) 17.6 and 17.8 appear to both handle casting from string to float.
Does one take precedence or is one meant to be redundant?
Received on Wednesday, 24 March 2004 12:18:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:13:56 UTC