Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> So your only complaint is that you believe that an XML document with a > provided schema will be forced to be typed? No. I have _lots_ of complaints, but that is a correct summary of this particular one. As far as I see there's nothing in document() for example that says read the document at that URI not some cut down view of it that you may infer from some schema that you find lying around. (For good readons the schema spec is very permissive in how a schema aware parser may associate schemas with documents). So basically if I use document() to load the document <A>012</A> then I know in XSLT1 that string(A) is "012" in all processors. In XPath2 it could be anything, from an error to whatever is the canonical lexical form of whatever type some schema applied. And from XSLT I don't get to control that. this is a massive backward step in interoperability. David _____________________________________________________________________ This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Scanning Service. For further information visit http://www.star.net.uk/stats.asp or alternatively call Star Internet for details on the Virus Scanning Service.
|
