- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:43:36 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3250 ------- Comment #3 from noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 2006-05-11 14:43 ------- Mike Kay writes: > (There's a real procedural problem here in trying > to define a data type in XML Schema and then > lobbing it over the fence to QT to define some > suitable operations. I personally have no idea how > to define an arithmetic that is sensitive to the > "precision" component of these values, yet that is > presumably what QT are expected to do.) Yes in principle, but in practice we're defining this type with the full intention that it be (nearly) isomorphic to the one being defined in IEEE754r, and as with binary floating point, the ieee draft does provide a useful suite of operations (see http://754r.ucbtest.org/drafts/754r.pdf), and in fact a high level but useful overview is available in the 754 wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_754r#Operations. Note that the draft specification itself says: " Each of the computational operations specified by this standard, except those identified as reduction operations, shall be performed as if it first produced an intermediate result correct to infinite precision and with unbounded range, and then coerced this intermediate result to fit in the destination's format (see Sections 4 and 7). Section 6 augments the following specifications to cover ±0, ±, and NaN; Section 7 enumerates exceptions caused by exceptional operands and exceptional results." I think the implied relationship covers both the question of the general motivation and intended tie to real world semantics for the type, as well as the more formal specifics of what an appropriate suite of operations would be. This seems to me to be a situation that's at least as good as for the Schema 1.0 types such as float. Noah
Received on Thursday, 11 May 2006 14:43:46 UTC