- From: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:04:09 -0400
- To: "Charles Frankston" <cbf@isovia.com>
- Cc: cmsmcq@acm.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
Charles Frankston writes:
>> I cannot think of a requirement that is advanced
>> by allowing multiple lexical representations for a
>> single datatype.
Regardless of the pros and cons of the binary types, the case that we (or
I anyway) found most compelling is:
100.0 == 1.0E2 == 0.1E3
for float. Requiring exponential notation would seem to be the only
consistent single lexical representation, and I don't think users prefer
that restriction. That decision on float lets the cat out of the bag:
having a single lexical rep. is not an invariant of the design. We then
allowed in leading zeros, etc. as a reasonable convenience given that
multiple reps are allowed in general.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036
Lotus Development Corp. Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 24 April 2001 21:08:03 UTC