W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2009

RE: Erratum for lexical representation for positiveInteger

From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:54:45 -0000
To: "'John Boyer'" <boyerj@ca.ibm.com>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <0EB434F75F9B480A8545866D4973C369@Sealion>
You're referring I think to which describes the lexical
representation. It's implicit that to be valid, the value as written must
satisfy the rules for the lexical representation and must also map to a
value that's in the value space, which is clearly described in the preceding
It's generally true for other data types that the rules for the lexical
representation are not complete in this sense. For example there is nothing
in the rules for the lexical representation of xs:short ( that
ensures that the resulting value will be less than 32768.
Michael Kay


From: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Boyer
Sent: 15 March 2009 23:36
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Subject: Erratum for lexical representation for positiveInteger

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. 


John M. Boyer, Ph.D.
STSM, Interactive Documents and Web 2.0 Applications
Chair, W3C Forms Working Group
Workplace, Portal and Collaboration Software
IBM Victoria Software Lab
E-Mail: boyerj@ca.ibm.com  

Blog:  <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/JohnBoyer>
Blog RSS feed:
Received on Sunday, 15 March 2009 23:55:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:50:09 UTC