- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2010 21:37:43 +0000
- To: public-qt-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=9605 Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution| |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Andrew Eisenberg <andrew.eisenberg@us.ibm.com> 2010-06-10 21:37:42 --- On June 8, the XML Query and XSL WGs considered the issue that you've raised. We find that F&O is inconsistent in its treatment of zero and negative zero. In Section 6.1 Numeric Types, for instance, we say: Note: This specification uses [IEEE 754-1985] arithmetic for xs:float and xs:double values. This differs from [XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition] which defines NaN as being equal to itself and defines only a single zero in the value space while [IEEE 754-1985] arithmetic treats NaN as unequal to all other values including itself and can produce distinct results of positive zero and negative zero. (These are two different machine representations for the same [XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition] value.) The text accompanying several functions discusses behaviour for both positive and negative zero inputs and outputs in the interest of alignment with [IEEE 754-1985]. Some of our functions allow either zero or negative zero to be returned, while others allow only one of these values. The WGs will not make any changes in this area for F&O 1.0/2.0. We will consider making such changes in F&O 1.1/2.1. We will not change the expected results that you have identified in the XQuery Test Suite. Instead, we will change our guidelines to allow a test harness to substitute "0" for "-0" in expected results before comparing them to its actual results. Please close this bug report if you accept this resolution of your issue. -- Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Thursday, 10 June 2010 21:37:45 UTC