This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 2227 - R-235: Canonical rep'n of -0.0
Summary: R-235: Canonical rep'n of -0.0
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: XML Schema
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Datatypes: XSD Part 2 (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: C. M. Sperberg-McQueen
QA Contact: XML Schema comments list
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: resolved
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2005-09-14 19:26 UTC by Sandy Gao
Modified: 2009-04-21 19:21 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Sandy Gao 2005-09-14 19:26:13 UTC
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
Comment 2 Dave Peterson 2005-11-01 01:37:35 UTC
(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.
Comment 3 C. M. Sperberg-McQueen 2006-09-21 00:00:30 UTC
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.