W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > April to June 2001

RE: Objection to hexBinary and base64Binary

From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:04:09 -0400
To: "Charles Frankston" <cbf@isovia.com>
Cc: cmsmcq@acm.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC0F93869.9FE3B11F-ON85256A39.0005B6AE@lotus.com>
Charles Frankston writes:

>> I cannot think of a requirement that is advanced 
>> by allowing multiple lexical representations for a 
>> single datatype.

Regardless of the pros and cons of the binary types, the case that we (or 
I anyway) found most compelling is:

        100.0 == 1.0E2 == 0.1E3

for float.  Requiring exponential notation would seem to be the only 
consistent single lexical representation, and I don't think users prefer 
that restriction.  That decision on float lets the cat out of the bag: 
having a single lexical rep. is not an invariant of the design.  We then 
allowed in leading zeros, etc. as a reasonable convenience given that 
multiple reps are allowed in general.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                                    Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp.                            Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 21:08:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:12:50 GMT