- From: <cotton@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 19:54:10 -0500
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
I have reviewed the XML Schema Datatypes specification and discussed my comments with Paul Biron (at XTech 2000). I have provided Paul with my editorial nits by providing him with a hard copy of my marked up document. The following are my non-editorial comments: 1. Section 2.4.1.2 Order This section states "In such cases each datatype will define a different order relation on the value space". I do not understand why this must be done. Certainly at worst is should say "may define". Better even would be to delete the sentence entirely. 2. Section 2.4.2.5 enumeration This section states "No order or any other relationship is implied ...". This seems to imply that enumerations are not ordered. I think this sentence needs to be reworded to imply that "No further ordering is implied" since certainly the ordering of the underlying data type must be inherited. If not then XML Query will have no means of ordering enumerations. 3. Section 3.2.1 string This section states "The ordered property of string is the Unicode character number sequence." The string data type is the only primitive datatype that makes an explicit statement about how the ordering relation (not property) is defined. I expect the ordering information is missing from other primitive datatype sections. 4. Section 3.2.1 string This section states "The ordered property of string is the Unicode character number sequence." I wonder why the definition of the string datatype does not permit a user to define the "collation" to be used? "Unicode character number sequence" is only one "collation" and is not very useful. In addition the specification does not explain why this "collation" is needed. XML Query will need to support different collations for the string data type. It would be preferable if the collation was defined as part of the <data type> not as part of the query <predicate>s. I would recommend you consider a solution such as one adopted by SQL to permit the type definer to simply name the collation to be used. No exact definition of the action collation needs to be provide since there are several other sources for this information. 5. Section 3.2.5 decimal The Note in this section asks "Our design discussions did not reveal convincing evidence of undue burden because of arbitrary precision decimal numbers in this design, but we welcome further input from implementors". I believe that you may want to consider the impact on implementors of a query language based on this data type that must implement <predicate>s and arithmetic operators for an "arbitary precision decimal number". I believe we will find this to be too expensive and that implementations will in fact constrain the precision of this data type. If the XML Schema specification does not do this then interoperability will be heavily constrained. I do not accept the argument that XML Schemas needs an arbitrarily precise decimal datatype just to be able to model the length of names in XML which are in turn unconstrained in length. I suggest that the document be modified to state that the maximum precision for decimal numbers should be an "implementation-defined number not less than X" where X can be agreed upon by implementors as a practical lower limit for this amount. "Implementation-defined" means that a conforming implementation must state in its conformance statement what the value is. 6. Section 3.3.9 integer The definition of the lexical representation of the integer datatype does not correctly reflect that non-significant leading and trailing zeroes should not be used. Non-significant zeroes are leading zeroes to the left of the decimal point or trailing zeroes to the right of the decimal point. I suggest using this concept in the descriptive material. 7. Section 3.3.22 date There is no specific definition in this specification of the value ranges of the CC, YY, MM, and DD parts of a date. Although this is probably defined in ISO 8601 it would be preferable if this information was included directly in this specification. This comment also applies to the time datatype. /paulc Paul Cotton, DB2 Language Architecture & Standards IBM Canada Ltd, 17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3 Phone: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (613) 226-6913 email: cotton@ca.ibm.com
Received on Friday, 10 March 2000 00:12:52 UTC