W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > April 2001

RE: XML Schema min/max/Inclusice/Exclusive facet question

From: Biron,Paul V <Paul.V.Biron@KP.ORG>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 14:23:35 -0700
Message-Id: <376E771642C1D2118DC300805FEAAF43014BACEA@pars-exch-1.ca.kp.org>
To: "'Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI'" <kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com>, KAZUMI Saito <ksaito@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org, xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Kohsuke KAWAGUCHI [SMTP:kohsuke.kawaguchi@eng.sun.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, April 10, 2001 11:18 AM
> To:	KAZUMI Saito
> Cc:	xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xmlschema-dev@w3.org
> Subject:	Re: XML Schema min/max/Inclusice/Exclusive facet question
> > 1. When the {primitive type definition} is float or double built-in
> type,
> >    can I specify NaN, INF or -INF as value of
> min/max/Inclusice/Exclusive facet?
> >    Is this constrainted in the specification ?
> As far as I know, yes, you can. Simply because NaN and INF and such things
> are lawful member of value space. There is no reason to prohibit them, and
> in
> fact there is no explicit statement that prohibits the use of them.
Yes it is legal.  As for how the "special values" figure into the order
relation on float and double, the spec says [1]:

	Positive zero is greater than negative zero. Not-a-number
	equals itself and is greater than all float values including
	positive infinity.

Naturally, negative infinity is less than all other values, even tho that is
not explicitly stated.

> > 2. About "Constraint on Schemas: maxInclusive and maxExclusive", is it
> error that
> >    deriving by adding the maxInclusive facet, when the maxExclusive is
> among the
> >    members of {facets} of {base type definition} ?
> See section 4.3.7 "CoS: maxInclusive valid restriction". It is an error
> only
> if the specified value is greater than or equal to the value of
> maxExclusive.
We have clarified "Cos: maxInclusive and maxExclusive" to note that the
constraint only applies within a single derivation step.  That is, the
following is illegal:

	<simpleType name='myType1'>
		<restriction base='integer'>
			<maxExclusive value='11'/>
			<maxInclusive value='10'/>

while the follow is perfectly legal:

	<simpleType name='myType2'>
				<restriction base='integer'>
					<maxExclusive value='11'/>
			<maxInclusive value='10'/>

> > 3. The minExclusive facet "Constraint on Schemas: minExclusive valid
> restriction"
> >    says "minExclusive is among the members of {facets} of {base type
> definition}
> >    and {value} is greater than the {value} of the parent minExclusive"
> is error.
> >    "greater than" is correct?
> I guess it's typo. It would be better to post this to
> www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org to let WG know this typo.
Yes, that was a typo in the PR draft and has been corrected.  The first
clause of that CoS should read:

	1. minExclusive is among the members of {facets} of
	    {base type definition} and {value} is less than the {value}
	    of the parent minExclusive 

Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2001 17:59:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:55:51 UTC