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

[Bug 2140] R-149: Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger in lexical form?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:27:01 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Cc:
Message-Id: <E1EEqCz-0002tA-Qf@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2140

           Summary: R-149: Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger in lexical
                    form?
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.0
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: All
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: XSD Part 2: Datatypes
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: sandygao@ca.ibm.com
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org


Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger? At the moment there's a contradiction. 
3.3.14.1 says "nonPositiveInteger has a lexical representation consisting of a 
negative sign ("-") followed by a finite-length sequence of decimal digits 
(#x30-#x39). If the sequence of digits consists of all zeros then the sign is 
optional." This doesn't allow +0. On the other hand 0 is in the value space of 
nonPositiveInteger and +0 is a legal representation of ) in the lexical space 
of integer. 

Either

(a) the prose in 3.3.14.1 needs fixing, or

(b) the schema for schema needs to add a pattern facet to the definition of 
nonPositiveInteger that excludes +0

If you do (b), then you will probably want to fix nonNegativeInteger to 
disallow "-0". However, at the moment there's no contradiction since the prose 
for nonNegativeInteger allows "an optional sign" not just an optional positive 
sign.

See:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0051.html
Received on Monday, 12 September 2005 15:27:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 18:13:09 GMT