Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 53"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Introduction == | == Introduction == | ||
| + | From Paul: | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | The names of the IVL properties to determine whether the low and high | ||
| + | intervals are open or closed is specified in the Abstract as "lowClosed" | ||
| + | and "highClosed", but in the XML as "inclusive". | ||
| + | |||
| + | It has been this way for as long | ||
| + | as I can remember. The XML ITS Data Types never uses the names | ||
| + | {low,high}Closed. Maybe we should have called the attribute 'closed' but | ||
| + | now that the 2005 Edition is baked it might not be worth the compatibility | ||
| + | problems to change it in R2. | ||
| + | |||
| + | But we should probably note in the R2 XML ITS that the 'inclusive' | ||
| + | attribute *is* the representation of {low,high}Closed because, you're | ||
| + | right, that connection is made explicitly | ||
? backward compatible. | ? backward compatible. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 24: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
| + | Grahame says: inclusive is a far better term than closed which has all | ||
| + | sorts of other connotations. We could change | ||
| + | the abstract properties to lowInclusive and highInclusive without | ||
| + | backward compatibility problems. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Skype discussion: would cause problems. leave names as they | ||
| + | are, document this in XML std.--[[User:GrahameGrieve|GrahameGrieve]] 20:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | ||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 22 June 2007
Data Types Issue 53: IVL attribute names
Introduction
From Paul:
The names of the IVL properties to determine whether the low and high
intervals are open or closed is specified in the Abstract as "lowClosed"
and "highClosed", but in the XML as "inclusive".
It has been this way for as long as I can remember. The XML ITS Data Types never uses the names {low,high}Closed. Maybe we should have called the attribute 'closed' but now that the 2005 Edition is baked it might not be worth the compatibility problems to change it in R2.
But we should probably note in the R2 XML ITS that the 'inclusive' attribute *is* the representation of {low,high}Closed because, you're right, that connection is made explicitly
? backward compatible.
Discussion
Grahame says: inclusive is a far better term than closed which has all sorts of other connotations. We could change the abstract properties to lowInclusive and highInclusive without backward compatibility problems.
Skype discussion: would cause problems. leave names as they are, document this in XML std.--GrahameGrieve 20:20, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
