[jsdl-wg] LoopDouble comments

[Donal K. Fellows]

geoff wrote:
[re LoopDouble accuracy]
> I think that this issue is another implementation concern for which we 
> should only provide recommendations in the specification, and agree that 
> this should not affect the schema (nor lead us to consider mandating a 
> particular language).

Non-normative recommendations are a good plan.

[re LoopDouble formatting]
> For this issue I'm again (perhaps unsurprisingly! :) ) convinced that it 
> is an implementation concern.
> 
> An XML parser/validator will naturally be expected to validate that a 
> JSDL XML document conforms to the defined schema, e.g. ensure specified 
> values are of type xsd:decimal, xsd:double, etc.. Beyond that though, in 
> terms of subsequent processing, I very much think that we should only 
> provide recommendations where appropriate. Even if we specified formats 
> we cannot mandate underlying implementations to use them. Using the 
> example above I personally would only anticipate recommending format 
> consistency when specifying looping.

I suspect this is something that we may have to revisit in the future,
though it is only a real problem when you're substituting the numbers
into a context like a fragment of a filename, where you're more likely
to have a "number-like thing" than a real number. When it is going into
a control file, it probably isn't a problem in practice. Could be that
my feel for this issue isn't perfect.

It's probably a good thing to recommend that implementors keep the
format consistent. Not good to flip back and forth between different
notation types. (Yes, non-normative for that will do.)

[re equality tests for doubles in Exception elements]
> Once more I feel we should only recommend to implementors that they may 
> wish to make such calculations.

That'd be fine as a non-normative recommendation. Was just suggesting
things that might make it easier to write. :-)

Donal.