- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
 - Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 02:12:16 +0000
 - To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
 
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6047
           Summary: Minimum implementation limit for decimal requires
                    infinite precision - did you mean that?
           Product: XML Schema
           Version: 1.1 only
          Platform: Macintosh
               URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-
                    comments/2008JulSep/0135.html
        OS/Version: Mac System 9.x
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2
        AssignedTo: cmsmcq@w3.org
        ReportedBy: cmsmcq@w3.org
         QAContact: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
In email to the XML Schema comments list on 5 September 2008
(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2008JulSep/0135.html),
Peter F. Patel-Schneider raised the following issue (among others):
  2/ Partial implementation limits for infinite datatypes
  2.1/ Incorrect treatment of decimal
  The OWL WG also noticed what appears to be a problem with partial
  implementation limits for the infinite datatypes [1].
  The LC draft says
     All minimally conforming processors must support decimal values
     whose absolute value is less than 10^16 (i.e., those expressible
     with sixteen total digits).
  but decimals can have fractional parts, so the non-parenthetical
  part appears to require infinite-precision decimals. Perhaps what
  was meant was to require support of only those decimal values that
  can be written using at most 16 decimal digits, i.e., to require
  support of 12.34567890123456 but not
  12.3456789012345678901234567890123456789
  The WG strongly suggests that this change be made to the LC
  draft. Otherwise the WG will be requiring minimal conformance that
  is less stringent than the minimal conformance in the LC draft.
-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2008 02:12:49 UTC