2948 2006-02-28 04:16:22 +0000 Datatypes 2006-02-17 WD: use order relation for min/max facets 2006-09-09 02:17:59 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only Macintosh All CLOSED FIXED resolved P2 normal --- 1 xan.gregg cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 8476 0 xan.gregg 2006-02-28 04:16:22 +0000 minExclusive and other facets define how to compare values. From 4.3.9.3: Validation Rule: minExclusive Valid A value in an ·ordered· ·value space· is facet-valid with respect to ·minExclusive· if and only if: 1 if the {value} property of the numeric component in {fundamental facets} is true, then the value ·must· be numerically greater than {value}; 2 if the {value} property of the numeric component in {fundamental facets} is false (i.e., {base type definition} is one of the date and time related datatypes), then the value ·must· be chronologically greater than {value}; Why not just rely on the already-defined order relation of the type instead of specifying "numerically" or "chronologically"? 8480 1 davep 2006-02-28 14:33:00 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > minExclusive and other facets define how to compare values. From 4.3.9.3: <snip/> > Why not just rely on the already-defined order relation of the type instead of specifying "numerically" or > "chronologically"? IIRC, that terminology is left over from 1.0, when we weren't so careful about defining order for each datatype. In any case, the order we define for numerical and date/time datatypes is the usual "numerical" or "chronological" order as appropriate. 8483 2 xan.gregg 2006-02-28 15:12:28 +0000 Thanks for the quick response, Dave. I'm suggesting the text would be simpler *and* more precise to rely on the already-defined order relation instead or re-describing it. That is, replace clauses 1 and 2 with 1. the value is greater than {value}, according to the datatype's order relation. FWIW, I don't see any definition of "chronologically greater than". 11538 3 cmsmcq 2006-09-08 23:30:19 +0000 Thank you for the suggestion. On 1 September, the Working Group considered this issue and instructed the editors to make the suggested change to all four validation rules for bounds checking. The change has been made in the member-only status-quo copy of the spec, and will be visible the next time a public working draft is issued. Please let us know if you agree with this resolution of your issue, by adding a comment to the issue record and changing the Status of the issue to Closed. Or, if you do not agree with this resolution, please add a comment explaining why. If you wish to appeal the WG's decision to the Director, then also change the Status of the record to Reopened. If you wish to record your dissent, but do not wish to appeal the decision to the Director, then change the Status of the record to Closed. If we do not hear from you in the next two weeks, we will assume you agree with the WG decision. 11546 4 xan.gregg 2006-09-09 02:17:59 +0000 Marking as Closed. Thanks.