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

[Bug 3230] Atomic = not decomposable?

From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:11:04 +0000
CC:
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1IYYv2-0002un-P5@wiggum.w3.org>

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3230


cmsmcq@w3.org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |needsReview




------- Comment #2 from cmsmcq@w3.org  2007-09-21 03:11 -------
Coming back to this issue, I wonder if matters would be improved if we
(a) changed the phrase "for purposes of this specification" in the
first sentence of section 2.4.1.1, Atomic Datatypes, to speak instead
of determining type validity, and (b) added a Note.

The first sentence now reads:

    An ·atomic· datatype has a ·value space· consisting of a set of
    "atomic" values which for purposes of this specification are not
    further decomposable.

With the changes, the section as a whole would read:

    2.4.1.1 Atomic Datatypes

    An ·atomic· datatype has a ·value space· consisting of a set of
    "atomic" or elementary values.

      Note: Atomic values are sometimes regarded, and described, as
      "not decomposable", but in fact the values in several datatypes
      defined here do have internal structure.  Except insofar as that
      internal structure is appealed to in checking whether particular
      values satisfy various constraints (e.g. upper and lower bounds
      on a datatype), however, that internal structure is not
      systematically exposed by this specification.  Other
      specifications which use the datatypes defined here may define
      operations which attribute internal structure to values and
      expose or act upon that structure.

    The ·lexical space· of an ·atomic· datatype is a set of ·literals·
    whose internal structure is specific to the datatype in question.
    There is one ·special· ·atomic· datatype (anyAtomicType), and a
    number of ·primitive· ·atomic· datatypes which have anyAtomicType
    as their ·base type·.  All other ·atomic· datatypes are derived
    either from one of the ·primitive· ·atomic· datatypes or from
    another ·ordinary· ·atomic· datatype.  No ·user-defined· datatype
    may have anyAtomicType as its ·base type·.

The prose from "The lexical space ..." through to the end is
unchanged.
Received on Friday, 21 September 2007 03:11:10 UTC

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