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 2000 - R-022: Floating Point Issues and IEEE
Summary: R-022: Floating Point Issues and IEEE
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.0 only
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-07 19:43 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:24 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-07 19:43:10 UTC
The datatypes spec has some inconsistencies with IEEE with respect to certain 
special values (such as NaNs). Should it be modified to reflect IEEE semantics? 

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2001May/0030.html
Comment 1 Sandy Gao 2005-09-07 19:43:44 UTC
A straw poll was held for the following questions: 

Should bit patterns be allowed to be specified for NaNs? 
Should there be a distinction made between signalling and quiet NaNs? 
Is NaN a value? 
Does NaN compare equal to NaN? 
Should NaNs be comparable to non-NaN values? 
Are -0 and +0 the same value? 
The results of the poll were summarized in the following meeting minutes: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2001Jul/0014.html 

No firm decisions made to date.

Status 2002/01: Dave P. and Ashok Malhotra have proposed the following 
resolution/text:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jan/0066.html 

Further discussion:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jan/0101.html 
Comment 2 Sandy Gao 2005-09-07 19:44:20 UTC
The WG resolved that this should be classified as an error, and the editors are 
to prepare final wording for an erratum that reflects the decisions made at the 
02/01 telecon:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Feb/0009.html 

Proposed erratum text reviewed at the March 28 telecon. The WG noted a possible 
contradiction in the definition of zero in the erratum for R-22 with our 
decision on R-97 and concluded that this erratum text is not yet ready, and 
instructed the editors to deal with R-22 and R-97 in the same erratum.

Status 04/24: New erratum text proposed: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Mar/0131.html 

Status 05/02: Revised text approved.

Erratum E2-40 added.