- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 19:06:34 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
- CC:
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3250 ------- Comment #5 from davep@iit.edu 2007-04-03 19:06 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > The other part of the problem, I think, is that defining the infinite value > space doesn't aid our understanding of the semantics of the data type all that > much. We need to understand something of the mechanisms used to restrict the > value space, and of the operations that are applicable to the data type. Well, specifying operations isn't something we pretend to do; we don't even say you must have an addition on decimal, for example. We leave that to users who have their own semantics tied to the name of the datatype. Mostly, we only care about an order. More to the point, however: the precisionDecimal datatype captures aspect of both "fixed precision" and "floating-point precision": If you lock the fraction-digit count to one value, you have a traditional fixed-point datatype; putting a max on the total-digit count makes it finite. If you put a max on the total-digit count, you get a floating-point datatype; a max and min (not the same) on fraction-digit count makes it finite. (Locking the total-digit count to a single value would produce the "normalized numbers for that max--754 terminology--but we haven't see any value in doing so.) Were we working with radix-2 digit counts, we could get the value spaces of float and double by using appropriate limits (the only thing missing would be the rounding of lexical representations to the nearest value in the value space).
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 19:06:35 UTC