- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 21:45:34 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4465
andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com |frans.englich@telia.com
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
------- Comment #1 from andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com 2007-04-24 21:45 -------
I wouldn't say that S4S wins, but that Schema 1.0 is ambiguous on this point.
A look at the most recent draft of Schema 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes, 3.4.21
unsignedLong, however, shows the following:
"unsignedLong has a lexical representation consisting of an optional sign
followed by a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). If the sign
is omitted, the positive sign ('+') is assumed. If the sign is present, it must
be '+' except for lexical forms denoting zero, which may be preceded by a
positive ('+') or a negative ('-') sign. For example: 0, 12678967543233,
100000."
Similar text exists for the other unsigned numeric types. With this additional
information, I feel that +0 and -0 should be allowed.
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2007 21:45:38 UTC