- From: Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 12:36:48 +0100 (MET)
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;xmlschema-dev@w3.org; (Henry S. Thompson);
Your are right. I made a mistake. Yet, I am not happy with the current definition of equality based on the special role of built-in primitive types. Maybe you can at least clarify this point in XML Schema 1.1 with a few examples. --Stefan > Stefan Wachter <Stefan.Wachter@gmx.de> writes: > > > ht writes: > > > > > But that would have the bad effect of treating e.g. (string)5 as equal > > > to (decimal)5.0, which is certainly wrong no matter how you look at > > > it. > > > > I assumed that for values to be equal they must have either the same > type or > > the type of one value must be a base type of the type of the other > value. > > Therefore, clearly > > > > (string)5 != (decimal)5.0 > > > > but > > > > (anySimpleType)5 = (string)5 = (byte)5 = (decimal)5.000 = ... > > You appear to contradict yourself -- (string)5 is and is not equal to > (decimal)5.000 > > Also note that on your account, (name)a != NMTOKEN(a), because neither > is derived from the other. > > ht > -- > Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of > Edinburgh > W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team > 2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440 > Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk > URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/ > [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged > spam] >
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 06:37:21 UTC