- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 16:38:17 +0100
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: antoine.zimmermann@insa-lyon.fr, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 2011-05-13, at 16:00, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Objection 3: Canonical lexical form of "2e+138"^^xsd:decimal is unwieldy > > Response: It's a wash. The canonical lexical representation of "2e-0"^^xsd:decimal is quite nice, for example. xsd:float/double? xsd:decimal doesn't include use the e+ notation: [from http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#decimal] “decimal has a lexical representation consisting of a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39) separated by a period as a decimal indicator. An optional leading sign is allowed. If the sign is omitted, "+" is assumed. Leading and trailing zeroes are optional. If the fractional part is zero, the period and following zero(es) can be omitted. For example: -1.23, 12678967.543233, +100000.00, 210.” - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Friday, 13 May 2011 15:38:46 UTC