This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
QT approved comment In 3.3.5, "Floating point numbers are certain subsets of the rational numbers" should read "Floating point numbers are a subset of the rational numbers".
(In reply to comment #0) > In 3.3.5, "Floating point numbers are certain subsets of the rational numbers" > should read "Floating point numbers are a subset of the rational numbers". Let us ignore so-called non-normalized or subnormal numbers, the two zeros, and the infinities and NaN. The remaining (normalized or normal) values in the value space of float is one subset of the rational numbers and is a set with a fixed floating-point precision; the normai(ized) values in the value space of double form another. Given that, how would you say it? It's not meant as a fornmal definition.
Perhaps what is intended then is "each of the floating point data types has a value space that is a subset of the rational numbers". What you can't say is that numbers are subsets: they aren't.
In 3.3.5 "Floating point numbers are certain subsets of the rational numbers" is replaced by "Each floating point datatype has a value space that is a subset of the rational numbers".
(In reply to comment #3) > In 3.3.5 "Floating point numbers are certain subsets of the rational numbers" > is replaced by "Each floating point datatype has a value space that is a subset > of the rational numbers". While adding this into datatypes.xml, I noticed that the change as stated caused a grammar error (subject-verb mismatch), so I reworded the result into two sentences. I also made the same change in 3.3.6, since the same sentence appears at the corresponding place therein.
The change proposed above was approved by the WG in its call of 1 December 2006. It is now reflected in the status quo version of the Datatypes spec. Accordingly, I am setting the disposition of this issue to RESOLVED / FIXED. If the originator of the issue would examine the change and let us know whether it satisfactorily resolves the problem or not, we'd be grateful. To signal that the resolution is acceptable, change the status of the issue to CLOSED. Otherwise, to signal that it's NOT acceptable, change the status to REOPENED (and tell us what's wrong). If we don't hear from you in the next three weeks, we'll assume that silence betokens consent, and close the issue ourselves.