[Bug 2947] Datatypes 2006-02-17 WD: what makes an order trivial?

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2947





------- Additional Comments From davep@iit.edu  2006-02-28 14:29 -------
(In reply to comment #0)
> minInclusive and other facets are said to only apply to "ordered" datatypes, and a datatype is said to 
be 
> ordered if it has a non-trivial order. What makes an order "trivial"? Is it when no values A and B exist 
in the 
> value space, where A < B?  Or is it when, for all A and B, A <> B? 

The former.  I gather you feel we need some wordsmithing here.  And we don't consider that a datatype 
"has" (in the sense of inherently associated with it) an order; it is ordered if schema associates an order 
with it.  The "trivial" order got introduced to make sense out of the "order" of a union that includes 
datatypes for which we don't explicitly associate an order--though that's a moot point since unions 
don't get max/min/etc. facets.  There was a time when we seemed to feel it necessary to explicitly say 
what the order was in unions, even though we don't use it.

E.g., string is, for schema purposes, only trivially ordered.

Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2006 14:28:35 UTC