Subject: RE: The Perils of Sudden Type-Safety in XPath 2.0
From: "Passin, Tom" <tpassin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:26:42 -0500
|
[ Gunther Schadow ]
> Please, please, can't this decision for XPath not turned
> around? Could strong typing not be made optional? Why should
> one go through the hassle of adding explicit type conversions
> if they do nothing else than making the hitherto conveniently
> implicit conversions explicit. What's the point of this?
>
It apparently is optional in this sense: if you do not supply a schema
for the xml source file, then the processor will have no types to assign
(except anyType). Then everything will be more or less as before.
Now if you have a schema specified but you do not want the xslt
processor to pay attention to it, you will probably be out of luck, as
best I can tell from recent posts on this.
Cheers,
Tom P
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
| Current Thread |
Passin, Tom - Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:24:51 -0500 (EST) <=
- bryan - Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:44:24 -0500 (EST)
- Gunther Schadow - Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:24 -0500 (EST)
- bryan - Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:23:01 -0500 (EST)
- Kurt Cagle - Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:58:11 -0500 (EST)
|
|