Does STEP serialization support numbers formated to an exponential format (eg -1E-04 )?
I see several toolkits writing this, but when validating on the buildingSMART website an error is suggested when this is used. ie
This means the dot/period is manditory. This applies regardless of whether an exponent notation is used. An integer literal is not a valid representation for a real (but that would trigger a schema error, not a syntax error).
Occasionally there are questions like this that are really about the 10303-21. (We had a similar question some month ago about the encoding of boolean values in 10303-21.) I don’t know what’s the proper way to, at the same time: provide a comprehensive specification for ifc + don’t violate iso copyrights + don’t spend a lot of time editing specs already defined elsewhere.
Purely as an editorial comment, it seems odd that was have an open standard that is based on a definition that is behind a paywall. Not sure what to do about that, but that does seem an implementation issue.
@TLiebich in light of the copyright issues, would it still be ok for bSI to include the REAL descriptions/examples in the IFC documentation? IS there someone on the ISO side you could ask for clarification? It’s kinda tricky because IFC is a direct derivative of STEP.
It may not just be this case, either. Are there other instances where the documentation can directly reflect needed descriptions/examples of such basic/core concepts from the STEP docs in the IFC docs to better enable understanding and execution?
I’m not suggesting copy/paste of everything, just some of the aspects needing clarification like how real numbers can/should be encoded.