- To: <michael.h.kay@n...>,<AndrewWatt2000@a...>
- Subject: RE: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
- From: "Michael Rys" <mrys@m...>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 00:48:01 -0700
- Cc: <xml-dev@l...>
- Thread-index: AcMVgiceog5iz9oQTpSYtCke5tQXDQAfOZ2A
- Thread-topic: Ten new XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
Title: Message
Also note that we have been working hard
to get meaningful semantics for untyped documents. This gives you strong typing
if you validated and have typed data and weak typing with implicit casts if you
have untyped data. The later you can even statically type if you want to.
Best regards
Michael
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Kay
[mailto:michael.h.kay@n...]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 9:51
AM
To: AndrewWatt2000@a...
Cc: xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: Ten new
XQuery, XSLT 2.0 and XPath 2.0 Working
> What I wonder about
for XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 is to take the current specs back to the drawing
board, in a sense similar to
> what XSLT 1.0 did relative
to DSSSL, and produce a non-typed XML Query/Transformation language.
Try telling someone who has rowed the
Atlantic and is within sight of land, that you think they could finish faster
if they started again and headed for a different destination. You would get
roughly the same reaction.
> What are the
strongest arguments in favour of strong typing in XSLT 2.0? Who is pushing
those arguments?
The arguments have been frequently
rehearsed. For people who are using XML Schema, it seems very natural indeed
that the stylesheet should take advantage of the type information
that is thereby available. For example, if you have 23 elements with the
same type, being able to match on the type is a real convenience. And there are
many people who ARE using XML Schema.
Don't ever imagine that everyone on the
XQuery group wants strong typing and everyone on the XSL group doesn't. That's
a complete fallacy. Both groups feel that they are now close to achieving the
goals that they set out to achieve.
|
|
Cart
