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 1919 - RQ-150c: set minimum implementation reqs for precisionDecimal (Requirement)
Summary: RQ-150c: set minimum implementation reqs for precisionDecimal (Requirement)
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 critical
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: XML Schema WG
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-1/re...
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-08-30 18:32 UTC by C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
Modified: 2008-03-05 13:49 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-08-30 18:32:56 UTC
As a follow-on from RQ-150 (clarify the minimum implementation 
limits for decimal, and get them right), the WG recognized the
need to specify analogous limits for precisionDecimal.
Comment 1 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-09-07 22:27:30 UTC
A separate proposal to resolve this issue is available at
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/xmlschema-2/datatypes.b1919.20050831.html

It raises the design question: what should the implementation
minima for precision decimal be?  Should they correspond to
decimal32? decimal64? decimal128?  (or perhaps the uninvented
decimal16?)

Comment 2 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-09-08 23:30:41 UTC
I've marked this as a requirement (in the summary, and by making
severity = critical), since RQ-150 is a requirement.  This may
be regarded, however, not as central to RQ-150, so the WG may wish
to change these markings.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2005-12-09 04:02:29 UTC
A proposal to resolve this issue by requiring that
implementations of XML Schema support the values 
representable using the decimal64 type of the draft
IEEE 754 spec was approved by the WG in September 2005;
the wording (modulo possible confusion about the actual
limits to be required) was integrated into the status
quo document 8 December 2005.
Comment 4 Dave Peterson 2008-03-05 13:49:02 UTC
Although no formal request for closure was made, since the reporter also noted the resolution of this bug over two years ago, I'm marking it closed.