- From: Dare Obasanjo <dareo@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 13:26:12 -0700
- To: "Hugh Wallis" <hugh_wallis@hyperion.com>, <xmlschema-dev@w3.org>
Before reading your paper I was wondering, have you paid attention to the work the XQuery working group has done in this area[0]? [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-xquery-20021115/#N40238D -- PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM A Smith & Wesson beats four aces. This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hugh Wallis [mailto:hugh_wallis@hyperion.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:15 PM > To: xmlschema-dev@w3.org > > ...or "Q. When is a float not a float? A. When it's a double" > > Doubtless this has been the subject of other discussions > before but it has become important for developing the XBRL > standard. Because of the way XML Schema has defined its > various types it seems it is not possible to use the XML > Schema specification directly to compare values of different > numeric types for equality even though such a comparison > might seem intuitively obvious. (For example I can't see how > the XML Schema float 1E0 can be compared against the XML > Schema double 1E0). Maybe I am missing something deep in the > referenced IEEE spec on this but the link from the XML Schema > specification takes me to a table of contents at the IEEE > site from which I can get no further. In XBRL, however, it > has become essential to know when two items are equal. > > I have prepared the attached discussion paper on which I > would be grateful to recive feedback from the XML Schema > cognoscenti. You can safely ignore the complications around > "precision" and "decimals" that are mentioned but I would > really appreciate any comments about the proposed approach. I > think that, in a way, it goes some way towards coalescing the > disparate numeric XML Schema types. Of course, I may have > reinvented the wheel here and, if I have done so, I would > appreciate any pointers to other work on the subject since I > would far rather reuse existing standards than invent > possibly diverging ones. > > I haven't thought this all the way through yet but it seems > to me that if we have a properly defined notion of equality > between values from different value spaces then we also have > an ordering or at least we are very close to one. Any comments anyone? > > Many thanks > > Hugh Wallis > > > ************************************************************** > ********** > > If you received this e-mail in error please delete it and > notify the sender as soon as possible. The contents of this > e-mail may be confidential and the unauthorized use, copying, > or dissemination of it and any attachments to it, is prohibited. > > Internet communications are not secure and Hyperion does not, > therefore, accept legal responsibility for the contents of > this message nor for any damage caused by viruses. The views > expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Hyperion. > > For more information about Hyperion, please visit our Web > site at www.hyperion.com >
Received on Thursday, 17 April 2003 16:26:21 UTC