W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2005

Re: Lexical space for unsignedXXX types

From: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:03:24 -0400
Message-Id: <a06230906bf0c461c550c@[192.168.0.2]>
To: "C. M. Sperberg-McQueen" <cmsmcq@acm.org>, Sandy Gao <sandygao@ca.ibm.com>
Cc: W3C XML Schema Comments list <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>

At 7:46 AM -0600 050726, C. M. Sperberg-McQueen wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 07:48, Sandy Gao wrote:
>>  (Applies to both 1.0 rec and 1.1 drafts.)
>>
>>  Sections 3.4.21~24.1 indicate that the lexical spaces for the unsigned
>>  types are "a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39)",
>>  which means that signs are not allowed. That is, neither "-0" nor
>>  "+123" is valid.
>>
>>  But the Schema for Schemas says that the unsigned types are derived
>>  from their base types by simply specifying a lower/upper bound, which
>>  has no impact to the sign in the lexical space.
>>
>  > Which interpretation is correct?

>I think there are two things we can do:  (1) treat
>the absence of a pattern facet as an error in the
>schema for schemas (since it deviates from our goal
>of eliminating magic from all built-in derivations
>as far as possible), or (2) treat the prose description
>as erroneous in failing to mention any possible sign.
>
>If anyone has evidence (preferably documentary, but
>recollections of intent may be the best we can do)
>bearing on what was intended, I'd be interested to
>see it.

Option 2 has already (in 1.0, 1.0 2E and 1.1 SQ) been selected for
unsignedInteger (3.4.20).  It would seem quite unreasonable to
expect the other unsigned ones to be different.  I don't recall
any deliberate attempt to make them different.
-- 
Dave Peterson
SGMLWorks!

davep@iit.edu
Received on Tuesday, 26 July 2005 20:05:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:08 GMT