This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Appendix D of Datatypes reads in part: A number (without precision) is an ordinary mathematical number; see Numerical Values (§D.1) for a discussion of "ordinary" versus "precision-carrying" numbers. In some drafts of the wording proposal ultimately adopted D.1 did contain a discussion of precision in numbers, but that discussion was deleted from the proposal before the proposal was adopted. The cross reference should have been deleted at the same time. One possible repair: replace the sentence quoted with A number (without precision) is an ordinary mathematical number; 1, 1.0, and 1.000000000000 are the same number. Previously reported internally by Dave Peterson at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2005Dec/0008.html
An alternative proposal, intended to make clear that the reference to decimals and integers being the numbers "generally used in describing datatypes" means that decimals and integers are used in the algorithms of appendices D and E. Change the first bullet item from A number (without precision) is an ordinary mathematical number; see Numerical Values (§D.1) for a discussion of "ordinary" versus "precision-carrying" numbers. The numbers generally used in describing datatypes are decimal numbers and integers. to A number (without precision) is an ordinary mathematical number; 1, 1.0, and 1.000000000000 are the same number. The numbers generally used in the algorithms below are decimal numbers and integers. But I could also live with the suggestion in the description of the issue.
(In reply to comment #1) > A number (without precision) is an ordinary mathematical number; > 1, 1.0, and 1.000000000000 are the same number. The numbers > generally used in the algorithms below are decimal numbers and > integers. I'd prefer this as the second sentence: The decimal numbers and integers generally used in the algorithms of Section XXX are such ordinary numbers, not carrying precision. I think the second sentence should tie to the first by mentioning at least either "ordinary" or "not precision".
On its telcon of 13 January 2006, the WG adopted the wording proposed in comment 1, as amended in comment 2.