W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > July to September 2007

[Bug 4913] Revise incomparability story to account for XPath evaluation

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:00:41 +0000
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IHspl-0008WU-V3@wiggum.w3.org>


------- Comment #1 from davep@iit.edu  2007-08-06 03:00 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> Section 2.2.3 of Datatypes reads in part:
>     The value spaces of primitive datatypes are abstractions, 
>     which may have values in common.  In the order relation 
>     defined herein, these value spaces are made artificially 
>     ·incomparable·.  For example, the numbers two and three 
>     are values in both the precisionDecimal datatype and the 
>     float datatype.  In the order relation defined herein, 
>     two in the decimal datatype and three in the float datatype 
>     are incomparable values.  Other applications making use of 
>     these datatypes may choose to consider values such as these 
>     comparable.
> There may be other passages which also assert or entail the proposition
> that for purposes of schema-validity assessment no comparisons of values
> from different primitive types are ever necessary, or that such comparisons
> always return false, etc.

Well, that passage itself doesn't seem to make such a statement about the
"purposes of schema-validity assessment".  I think the line you are thinking of
is "The order relation is used in conjunction with equality when making
∑facet-based restrictions∑ involving order.  This is the only use of order for
schema processing."  Similar lines about equality and identity occur in each of
their subsections.

I suggest that each such line carry an exception, such as replacing the second
sentence ("This is
the only use...") by "This is the only use of *this* order for schema
processing.  However, some schema processing involves XPath expressions; when
evaluating these expressions, the rules of XPath apply."

I'm not aware of any other places that would need fixing, other than these
Received on Monday, 6 August 2007 03:00:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:06 UTC