- From: Charles Frankston <cbf@isovia.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 21:37:00 -0400
- To: <Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com>
- Cc: <cmsmcq@acm.org>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <1C7DC7A88C4CAA458BA6D12B3C21CDBF03DF86@enterprise.isovia.com>
Perhaps it would be better to say I object to allowing multiple syntaxes for binary. The variations for float are consistent with the operation of traditional number parsers. Allowing an alternative, hexidecimal represenation, as was proposed at one point, would have been another story entirely. Btw, I think the variations on ISO8601 dates allow by the spec are worse, but again, at least conform to a single (but complex) syntax. Actually, I would have been all in favor of defining all the representations so precisely that no variation would be allowed. 99.9999% of the time these values will be interpreted by programs without humans ever seeing them. Yes, they should be a human readable syntax because humans do read them during development and debugging. But 1.0E2 would have been good enough for those who have to debug. (Note that most business programs would probably choose a decimal format, the representation of which would be more traditional.) This goes doubly for the dates where I think the many variations of 8601 create an undue burden on parsers. -----Original Message----- From: Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com [mailto:Noah_Mendelsohn@lotus.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 10:04 AM To: Charles Frankston Cc: cmsmcq@acm.org; www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org Subject: RE: Objection to hexBinary and base64Binary 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 21:37:36 UTC