Difference between revisions of "Datatypes R2 Issue 53"
| Line 24: | 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. | ||
== Links == | == Links == | ||
Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | Back to [[Data Types R2 issues]] | ||
Revision as of 01:21, 21 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.
Links
Back to Data Types R2 issues
