- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:47:16 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- Cc:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=2970 ------- Additional Comments From xan.gregg@jmp.com 2006-03-03 15:47 ------- I remember some of the discussion for aligning these types in the hierarchy before when I was involved with the WG, but I don't remember the option presented in my original comment here ("minimal precision") being considered. I mainly remember a proposal where precision=absent for xs:decimal, but that expands the value space of xs:precisionDecimal since the latter doesn't allow precision=absent for numeric values. What is the extra machinery for treating xs:d as a "minimal precision" xs:pd (and xs:integer as an integral-presicion xs:pd)? I take it instead of different lexical mappings, you would have a shared lexical mapping that is conditioned by a precision-mapping facet, whose values would be exact, minimal, or integral. Any other machinery or is that already too much? Anyway, my memory is faulty and probably my analysis, too. Thanks for the factual corrections on the lexical mapping issues for integer and token.
Received on Friday, 3 March 2006 15:47:19 UTC