Re: Erratum for lexical representation for positiveInteger

On 15 Mar 2009, at 17:36 , John Boyer wrote:

>
> In [1], the description of positiveInteger says optional + then any  
> number of [0-9].
>
> Shouldn't it be optional +, any number of zeroes, a [1-9], then any  
> number of [0-9]?
>
> As described, positiveInteger seems to permit 0.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028/datatypes.html#positiveInteger



Thank you for the comment.

The XML Schema WG discussed this issue on its telcon this
morning, and concurred with Michael Kay's analysis of the
situation, which is that this is not actually an error in the
spec but just one instance of a general fact about the
descriptions of our lexical spaces: satisfying the descriptions
is typically a necessary but not a sufficient condition of type
validity; the examples of byte, short, int, etc. are perhaps the
most obvious cases of this.

Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your
issue, by adding a comment to the issue record at
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6707 and changing
the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with
this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish
to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the
Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your
dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director,
then change the Status of the record to Closed.

(It's slightly more convenient for the WG if you respond in
Bugzilla, but if necessary you can reply to this email, instead.)

If we do not hear from you in the next ten days or so, we will
assume you agree with the WG decision.


-- 
****************************************************************
* C. M. Sperberg-McQueen, Black Mesa Technologies LLC
* http://www.blackmesatech.com
* http://cmsmcq.com/mib
* http://balisage.net
****************************************************************

Received on Saturday, 18 April 2009 02:15:30 UTC