This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 1834 - lexical space of unsigned types needs clarification
Summary: lexical space of unsigned types needs clarification
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Linux
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks: 4328
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2005-08-09 01:05 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-03-08 14:06 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-08-09 01:05:11 UTC
The prose of the spec and the schema for schemas are at odds with each
other for all of the unsigned numeric types.  The prose says the
lexical forms of these types contain nothing but digits, but the
schema for schemas defines no pattern outlawing signs.

Either a pattern should be added, or the prose should be changed.

The implementations I've checked mostly follow the schema for
schemas; if this is true for other implementations as well, then
the prose should be changed, both in 1.0 and in 1.1.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-08-09 01:08:33 UTC
In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005JulSep/0016.html,
Dave Peterson suggests that the right thing to do is to change the prose.
Comment 2 Dave Peterson 2006-01-09 21:21:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #1)
> In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2005JulSep/0016.html,
> Dave Peterson suggests that the right thing to do is to change the prose.

Recommend that the rewording be done in the style of the SQ description of lexical mappings
as in the dayDateDuration and yearMonthDuration descriptions.  (In fact, this style should be
used for to rewrite all "other datatypes" lexical mapping descriptions that don't follow that
style.)
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-15 00:14:42 UTC
The WG classified this issue as a requirement at its telcon of 13 January 2006
and instructed the editors to prepare a proposal with the obvious fix.
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-01-28 18:23:49 UTC
A proposal to resolve this issue by changing the prose
describing the relevant lexical spaces was considered and
adopted on 20 January 2006.