- From: Arnold, Curt <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 10:22:05 -0700
- To: "'Edward Jason Riedy'" <ejr@CS.Berkeley.EDU>
- Cc: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Thanks for your comments, but I assume that the discussion will go over most people's heads. You do give a good demonstration of the complexity of floating point systems. I believe that tying XML Schema's data types to a specific implementation creates an enormous implementation issue for applications on platforms that do not have that specific type. From your comments, it appears that you would agree with that. With the lexical representation, we have an unlimited range and unlimited precision. I believe that it is strongly preferrable for an application to express a value to the best of its knowledge and let a receiving system appropriately handle any problems fitting it into its implementation datatype. Since the range comparisions for bounds can be done lexically (and I believe much faster than through conversion and comparision), there is no need for schema datatypes to delve into this mess. In the dec17alt, I believe that I suggested an attribute where a datatype could hint at what implementation datatypes should be used. This hint would imply no constraints on the value and would not compell an application to use that datatype, but it might address the objective of those who are trying to bind schema datatypes to specific implementations. I'll email you the HTML files for the Help file.
Received on Monday, 17 January 2000 12:24:40 UTC