Closed Aiden-Ziegelaar closed 2 weeks ago
Hi @Aiden-Ziegelaar
Thanks for raising this, it will be resolved in the next version of the Standards through an existing documentation change providing clearer examples - #410 - Clarify RateString description and examples.
Hi @Aiden-Ziegelaar This was resolved in Standards v1.32.0, see updated Common Field Types.
Description
The
RateString
common type currently has its final example listed as: “-99.123456789123”(=9912.3456789123%)
I believe this example is missing a negative sign on the equivalent percentage.Intention and Value of Change
Rectifying this example will decrease ambiguity in the application of the standards.
Area Affected
The
RateString
type is used throughout the standards, but this specific example occurs in the "Common Field Types" subheading under "High Level Standards". Common Field TypesChange Proposed
Update the example to include the negative sign in the
RateString
percentage equivalent. “-99.123456789123”(=-9912.3456789123%)