12572 2011-04-29 16:34:04 +0000 pointer to precisionDecimal 2011-06-03 02:03:06 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only All All CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 davep David_E3 cmsmcq nrm www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 47808 0 davep 2011-04-29 16:34:04 +0000 With precisionDecimal deleted from XSD Part 2 and to be published as a separate Note, once that Note is published there should be a pointer to that note in XSD Part 2. MSM suggested such a pointer could be in the discussion about implementation-defined datatypes. 47952 1 cmsmcq 2011-05-04 16:38:46 +0000 Would the following changes resolve this issue satisfactorily? 1 In section 2.4.2 Special vs. Primitive vs. Ordinary Datatypes, expand the existing note from Note: As normatively specified elsewhere, conforming processors must support all the primitive datatypes defined in this specification; it is ·implementation-defined· whether other primitive datatypes are supported. to Note: As normatively specified elsewhere, conforming processors must support all the primitive datatypes defined in this specification; it is ·implementation-defined· whether other primitive datatypes are supported. Processors MAY, for example, support the floating-point decimal datatype specified in [Precision Decimal]. 2 In section 2.4.3 Definition, Derivation, Restriction, and Construction, expand the first existing note from Note: The properties of any ·implementation-defined· ·primitive· datatypes are given not here but in the documentation for the implementation in question. to Note: The properties of any ·implementation-defined· ·primitive· datatypes are given not here but in the documentation for the implementation in question. Alternatively, a primitive datatype not specified in this document can be specified in a document of its own not tied to a particular implementation; [Precision Decimal] is an example of such a document. 3 In section 3.3 Primitive Datatypes, immediately before section 3.3.1 string add a new note immediately following the paragraph that now reads Conforming processors MUST support the ·primitive· datatypes defined in this specification; it is ·implementation-defined· whether they support others. ·Primitive· datatypes may be added by revisions to this specification. Note: Processors MAY, for example, support the floating-point decimal datatype specified in [Precision Decimal]. 4 In the non-normative references, add Precision decimal World Wide Web Consortium. An XSD datatype for IEEE floating-point decimal, ed. David Peterson and C. M. Sperberg-McQueen. W3C Working Group Note to-be-published-rsn. Available at: http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2004/06/pD/precisionDecimal.html (member-only link; to be published; this citation will be updated silently). Sometimes I've thought we might also wish to mention the precision-decimal document at the places where we talk about implementation-defined facets (specifically the bottom of 4.1.5), but I don't see a good hook there this morning. This proposal has not had editorial review, but I'm taking the liberty of marking it needsReview anyway; the other editors should not be held responsible for any flaws in the proposal. 48026 2 nrm 2011-05-05 01:21:55 +0000 > MSM suggested such a pointer could be > in the discussion about implementation-defined > datatypes. Yes, though it makes a lot of sense to me to also/instead have a brief mention and link from notes in at least the decimal type section, and conceivably float/double too (on the theory that pD is both a decimal type, and unified in its IEEE specification with the binary floating types). I wouldn't make a big fuss if you decide to stick with just implementation-defined, but I do think at least some of the other mentions make at least as much sense. Thank you. Noah 48189 3 David_E3 2011-05-06 16:15:51 +0000 amendment: After para 1 of 3.3.3 decimal, add "Note: For a decimal datatype whose values do reflect precision, see [Precision Decimal]. Resolution: adopt the proposal as ammended. 49074 4 cmsmcq 2011-06-02 19:44:41 +0000 The proposal adopted on 6 May (as amended) has now been integrated into the status-quo documents, so I'm marking this issue resolved. Dave, if as the originator you would check that the fix has taken and then close or reopen this issue? Thanks. 49121 5 davep 2011-06-03 02:03:06 +0000 looks OK, pending publication of the separate Note which will entail changing the pointer thereto.