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 3120 - precisionDecimal vs QT Data Model
Summary: precisionDecimal vs QT Data Model
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: 1.1 only
Hardware: PC Windows XP
: P2 major
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard: important, easy, pD cluster
Keywords: resolved
: 3080 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2006-04-14 03:12 UTC by Jim Melton
Modified: 2007-06-27 08:58 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Jim Melton 2006-04-14 03:12:45 UTC
The integration of precision decimal into the QT type system raises a number of questions about QT's numeric promotion hierarchy and so forth.  In order to make that go smoothly the XML Query WG and XSL WG request that the XML Schema WG not move forward with precision decimal (i.e. move out of LC) until the three WGshave had a chance to discuss the issues and reach consensus.  Query/XSL WGs propose that we do this in the June F2F meeting.
Comment 1 Dave Peterson 2006-10-23 18:18:20 UTC
*** Bug 3080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 2 David Ezell 2007-06-26 15:19:40 UTC
Proposed by the WG at the June 2007 f2f

1 we retain pD in our spec

2 when we enter CR, we mark pD as a feature at risk

3 exit criteria for retaining pD after CR include (a) implementations in the context of XML Schema, (b) uptake outside of XML Schema, (c) state of the relevant IEEE specs

4 we agree that clarity is needed on the operational semantics; we think that Don Chamberlin's note at [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-query-wg/2006May/0023.html
] provides the requisite semantics (assuming his open questions get decided)

5 we're aware there's a need to say something about the transition.  QT and Schema should work together on this problem.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-06-27 08:49:12 UTC
The proposal having been presented to the QT working groups today,
I'm going to go ahead and mark this RESOLVED.  The QT working groups
may CLOSE the issue to indicate their acquiescence to our plan, or
Comment 4 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2007-06-27 08:50:00 UTC
... or REOPEN it to indicate their dissent.