2140 2005-09-12 15:27:00 +0000 R-149: Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger in lexical form? 2009-04-21 19:25:04 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.0 only All All CLOSED FIXED P2 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6089 0 sandygao 2005-09-12 15:27:00 +0000 Is +0 allowed as a nonPositiveInteger? At the moment there's a contradiction. 3.3.14.1 says "nonPositiveInteger has a lexical representation consisting of a negative sign ("-") followed by a finite-length sequence of decimal digits (#x30-#x39). If the sequence of digits consists of all zeros then the sign is optional." This doesn't allow +0. On the other hand 0 is in the value space of nonPositiveInteger and +0 is a legal representation of ) in the lexical space of integer. Either (a) the prose in 3.3.14.1 needs fixing, or (b) the schema for schema needs to add a pattern facet to the definition of nonPositiveInteger that excludes +0 If you do (b), then you will probably want to fix nonNegativeInteger to disallow "-0". However, at the moment there's no contradiction since the prose for nonNegativeInteger allows "an optional sign" not just an optional positive sign. See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0051.html 6090 1 sandygao 2005-09-12 15:34:52 +0000 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0053.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0053.html Resolution: Discussed at the May 31 telecon. WG resolved to to classify R-149 as a clarification with erratum, and instruct the editors to draft an erratum fixing the prose. Proposed text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Jun/0010.html Final approved text may be found at: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002AprJun/0086.html Erratum E2-27 added.