• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>,Mike Champion <mc@x...>,xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:13:24 -0700
• In-reply-to: <p0433010bb90598b21f6f@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <1XPOCAZWNKQK43XUXT4XR706PLGAOK.3cdfd29a@MChamp><1XPOCAZWNKQK43XUXT4XR706PLGAOK.3cdfd29a@MChamp>

At 12:22 PM 5/13/2002 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>At 10:50 AM -0400 5/13/02, Mike Champion wrote:
>
>>Are we talking about the XPath built-in types or the W3C XSD "primitive"
>>types?  My sense of the 80/20 point for typing is strings, date-time,
>>integers, floating points ... maybe 1-2 more.  The 30 or so
>>"primitive" types that make controversial distinctions between
>>short and long integers, dates and times, etc. etc. do not seem like
>>a sensible starting point for a minimial conformance level.
>
>I wouldn't even go so far as to include integers. XPath 1.0/XSLT 1.0 works 
>prett well with just floating point numbers.

I think Mike is talking about types used for data in the XML instance. At 
that level, XPath 1.0 / XSLT 1.0 doesn't really have even floating point 
numbers - these are in the programming model, but not in the data that is 
manipulated.

Jonathan

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>

• References:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread