- From: Ofer Brandes <brandes@mintech.co.il>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 17:11:34 +0200
- To: "'www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org'" <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
Hi, After a few months of working on other issues, I have recently returned to see what is new with XML, and I'd like to express my appreciation for the progress made with XML Schema. I see in the drafts of 17 December 1999 a very good foundation for a solid semantic basis, which was so missing in XML for a long time. I have, though, a couple of questions, and excuse me if they represent the ignorance of a new-comer to this community: (1) boolean datatype (section 3.2.2 of http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/) I think 'true' and 'false' are not enough for the boolean value space. In addition we need at least 'unknown' (similar to NAN for numeric types). This value enriches the expressive power of the datatype, and can easily be used in boolean computations (e.g. 'true' or 'unknown' evaluates to 'true'). If we don't have it, there will be cases where we either force arbitrary 'true' or 'false' values or bypass boolean by user-defined datatypes with richer expressive power. (2) float and double datatypes (sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 of http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/) It is not clear to me why these two are considered "Primitive Datatypes". Why not define a single primitive datatype representing real numbers (the mathematical concept), and then derive two (or more) generated datatypes according to the needs of IEEE-754 or any other need? My feeling is, that the basic datatypes should be as abstract as possible, which will increase both their usability (especially by non-programmers) and stability (as representation standards change over the years). I'll be glad to get feedback from those of you who are part of this important initiative. -- Ofer
Received on Sunday, 30 January 2000 10:09:51 UTC