- From: <bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:28:42 +0000
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=6707
Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |mike@saxonica.com
--- Comment #3 from Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com> 2009-04-20 20:28:42 ---
>it is reasonable to expect that some editing effort would be
expended to correct the descriptions of the lexical spaces of data types when
there are simple and obvious regular expressions that do a better job of
characterizing the lexical space.
(1) The descriptions are not incorrect, they do not need to be corrected.
Restricting the base type both by using minInclusive/maxInclusive and by using
a pattern would be unnecessary redundancy. We don't need to say the same thing
in two different ways, and doing so is always dangerous because of the risk of
inconsistency.
(2) Providing a precise pattern for some subtypes of integer and not for others
would be inconsistent, and would make readers ask the reason for the
inconsistency. It is always possible to define a numeric range by means of a
regular expression, but in general the regular expressions that result are
extremely unwieldy (which is why XSD provides minInclusive and maxInclusive as
a more convenient way of doing it). There is no logic to treating this one as a
special case just because the regular expression in this one case is moderately
readable.
Michael Kay
--
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 Monday, 20 April 2009 20:28:51 UTC