2227 2005-09-14 19:26:13 +0000 R-235: Canonical rep'n of -0.0 2009-04-21 19:21:38 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 unspecified All All CLOSED WONTFIX resolved P2 normal --- 1 sandygao cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 6250 0 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:26:13 +0000 If I understand the specs correctly, the canonical form of the decimal -0.0 is - 0.0, but I would expect it to be 0.0. I scanned through the errata but couldn't find anything that's related to this. Is this an error in the XML Schema datatypes spec? See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JulSep/0082.html 6251 1 sandygao 2005-09-14 19:26:22 +0000 See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003OctDec/0011.html 6980 2 davep 2005-11-01 01:37:35 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > If I understand the specs correctly, the canonical form of the decimal -0.0 is - > 0.0, but I would expect it to be 0.0. I scanned through the errata but couldn't > find anything that's related to this. Is this an error in the XML Schema > datatypes spec? The decimal value -0.0 *is* the decimal value 0.0. One value can only have one canonical form. Zero (by whatever name) has the canonical form '0,0'. We should amend the 1.0 spec so as to exclude *opitional* minus as well as plus signs. (Of course, a minus sign is optional in only the case of zero.) Specifically, the preceding optional plus sign is prohibited; in the case of zero, the optional minus sign is also prohibited. 11918 3 cmsmcq 2006-09-21 00:00:30 +0000 At the face to face meeting of January 2006 in St. Petersburg, the Working Group decided not to take further action on this issue in XML Schema 1.1. (This issue was not discussed separately; it was one of those which were dispatched by a blanket decision that all other open issues would be closed without action, unless raised again in last-call comments.) Some members of the Working Group expressed regret over not being able to resolve all the issues dealt with in this way, but on the whole the Working Group felt it better not to delay Datatypes 1.1 in order to resolve all of them. This issue should have been marked as RESOLVED /WONTFIX at that time, but apparently was not. I am marking it that way now, to reduce confusion.