RE: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?

Ashok Malhotra writes:

>> I have come to the conclusion that when you 
>> derive a simple type you should not inherit 
>> the lexical representation of the base type. 

I find this very problematic.  The primer shows:

<xsd:simpleType name="myInteger">
  <xsd:restriction base="xsd:integer">
    <xsd:minInclusive value="10000"/>
    <xsd:maxInclusive value="99999"/>
  </xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>

Are you implying that there is no specified lexical space for this type? 
How can that work?

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







"Ashok Malhotra" <ashokma@microsoft.com>
Sent by: www-xml-schema-comments-request@w3.org
04/24/2002 09:34 AM

 
        To:     "James Clark" <jjc@jclark.com>, "XML Schema Comments" 
<www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        RE: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?


James:
I have come to the conclusion that when you derive a simple type you
should not inherit the lexical representation of the base type.  If you
do,
you open your self to a host of problems which we can discuss another
time.

Thus, simple type derivation merely gives you a new, more restricted
value 
space.  You can then go ahead an specify a lexical space for this
restricted
value space and specify a mapping from the lexical to the value space.

If you look at it this way, nonPositiveInteger has a value space
consisting
of 0 and the negative integers.  Its lexical space consists of 0 and
strings of digits preceded by a minus sign.

All the best, Ashok 
===========================================================


-----Original Message-----
From: James Clark [mailto:jjc@jclark.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:23 AM
To: XML Schema Comments
Subject: Is +0 a nonPositiveInteger?

Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger?  At the moment there's a
contradiction. 3.3.14.1 says "nonPositiveInteger has a lexical
representation consisting of a negative sign ("-") followed by a
finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). If the sequence of
digits consists of all zeros then the sign is optional."  This doesn't
allow
+0.  On the other hand 0 is in the value space of nonPositiveInteger and
+0
is a legal representation of ) in the lexical space of integer.

Either

(a) the prose in 3.3.14.1 needs fixing, or

(b) the schema for schema needs to add a pattern facet to the definition
of
nonPositiveInteger that excludes +0

If you do (b), then you will probably want to fix nonNegativeInteger to
disallow "-0". However, at the moment there's no contradiction since the
prose for nonNegativeInteger allows "an optional sign" not just an
optional
positive sign.

James

Received on Friday, 26 April 2002 17:51:19 UTC