- From: Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:50:26 -0400
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
In the sections describing the lexical representation for unsignedLong [1], unsignedInt [2], unsignedShort [3] and unsignedByte [4] it says that the lexical representation for these types consists of a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). The examples that follow the descriptions have no leading sign which makes sense given the names of these types. In the schema for datatype definitions [5] unsignedLong is derived by restriction from nonNegativeInteger. nonNegativeInteger [6] allows a leading '+' sign and even a '-' sign for lexical forms denoting zero. The type definition of unsignedLong has a maxInclusive facet but this doesn't disallow a leading sign. Is it really true that an optional sign is allowed in the lexical form of the unsigned integer types? If so shouldn't that be stated in the description of the lexical representation for each of those types? If not shouldn't unsignedLong specify a pattern facet which disallows a leading sign? There appears to be an error either in the schema or in the lexical representation descriptions. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#unsignedLong-lexical-representation [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#unsignedInt-lexical-representation [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#unsignedShort-lexical-representation [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#unsignedByte-lexical-representation [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#schema [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PER-xmlschema-2-20040318/#nonNegativeInteger-lexical-representation Michael Glavassevich XML Parser Development IBM Toronto Lab
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 21:50:57 UTC