3223 2006-05-09 09:40:52 +0000 Literals in the value space? 2006-09-27 18:01:17 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified XML Schema Datatypes: XSD Part 2 1.1 only PC Windows XP CLOSED FIXED thimble, easy resolved P2 normal --- 1 mike cmsmcq www-xml-schema-comments oldest_to_newest 9635 0 mike 2006-05-09 09:40:52 +0000 QT approved comment Section 2.2.1, in the WARNING note, the phrase "neither [literal] is in the value space" seems odd. No literal is ever in a value space; I think the intended meaning is that neither literal is the canonical representation of any value in the value space. 9714 1 davep 2006-05-09 16:37:22 +0000 (In reply to comment #0) > Section 2.2.1, in the WARNING note, the phrase "neither [literal] is in > the value space" seems odd. No literal is ever in a value space; I think the > intended meaning is that neither literal is the canonical representation of > any value in the value space. It should read "neither 0.1 nor 0.10000000009 is in the value space". (I suspect that the canonical representation of the value to which '0.1' maps is in fact '0.1', but that's not the point.) 12020 2 davep 2006-09-26 03:19:18 +0000 The WG has approved the following rewording: "The ·literals· '0.1' and '0.10000000009' map to the same value in float (neither 0.1 nor 0.10000000009 is in the value space, and each ·literal· is mapped..." It will be placed into the status quo document. 12107 3 davep 2006-09-27 17:47:48 +0000 The approved rewording is now in the status quo document. Please let us know that 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. 12109 4 mike 2006-09-27 18:01:17 +0000 OK