- From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 09:51:26 -0400
- To: <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- CC: <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
From: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com> Subject: Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 08:36:37 -0500 > > > On 13/05/11 14:09, Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote: >> From: Steve Harris<steve.harris@garlik.com> >> Subject: Re: Proposal for ISSUE-12, string literals >> Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 07:07:36 -0500 >> >> [...] >> >>> Hesitant -1 to, there are numbers that xsd:double for e.g. can >>> represent, that xsd:decimal doesn't promise to. >> >> Huh? >> >> Did someone change the laws of arithmetic while I wasn't looking? > > xsd:double are IEEE 754-1985 and includes NaN, signed zeros, INF, -INF > > xsd:decimal does not, but can express numbers xsd:double can't because > XSD double is 64 bit, fixed format with 52 bits of fractional part. > > Andy Let's restrict ourselves to numbers, not heresies. peter
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 13:53:17 UTC