- From: Dave Peterson <davep@iit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 19:40:50 -0400
- To: Michael Glavassevich <mrglavas@ca.ibm.com>, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
At 5:50 PM -0400 10/20/04, Michael Glavassevich wrote: >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. Quite right: The description doesn't match the specified derivation. I can't speak for the WG--I suspect there will be a quick survey of implementations to see if they commonly accept an optional leading '+'. However, since unsigned integer allows the sign(s), if I had to I would guess that the others will too. In any case, I'm sure the WG will make a decision one way or the other. -- Dave Peterson SGMLWorks! davep@iit.edu
Received on Wednesday, 20 October 2004 23:41:22 UTC