W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: LC-197. scale: Allow negative scale?

From: Martin J. Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 12:59:21 +0900
Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.J.20001010125522.0356f9d0@sh.w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>
To: Don Mullen <don@extensibility.com>
Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Hello Don,

Many thanks for your notice. As far as I understand your comments
below, this issue has not been rejected completely, but has been
put in the list of features to be considered for the next version
(can you tell me where that list is?).

If that's indeed the case, I don't want to follow up on this issue
at the moment.

Regards,   Martin.

At 00/10/09 17:30 -0400, Don Mullen wrote:

>Dear Mr. Duerst:
>
>The W3C XML Schema Working Group has spent the last several months working
>through the comments received from the public on the last-call draft of the
>XML Schema specification. We thank you for the comments you made on our
>specification during our last-call comment period, and want to make sure you
>know that all comments received during the last-call comment period have
>been recorded in our last-call issues list
>(<http://www.w3.org/2000/05/12-xmlschema-lcissues>).
>
>You raised the point registered as issue LC-197, which suggests the
>datatypes spec be changed to allow negative values for precision.
>
>This issue was discussed in our conference call of 2000-07-27.
>
>Jim Trezzo, in summarizing your issue, indicated that we should separate out
>the value-space implications from the lexical-space implications.  The
>value-space implications would be that the last n digits of the integer must
>be 0.  Oracle and RDB do allow this; but it was noted that this usage is not
>widespread. The lexical-space implications are that one might say if scale
>is -3, you write 5 and mean 5000. Or perhaps you would write 5000, and say
>that 5123 would be outside the value space.
>
>The Working Group voted not to include this change in 1.0.  The majority
>felt that this change would cause confusion, and needed to be considered in
>the context of the general units question, which has been postponed.
>
>Note that your comments regarding corrections to precision scale were
>integrated into the the latest datatypes spec.
>
>It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
>decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the WG's
>decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of the W3C.
>
>Regards,
>Don Mullen
>XML Schema Language Working Group
Received on Tuesday, 10 October 2000 02:19:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:48 GMT