Subject: Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call for comments From: Francis Norton <francis@xxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 10:55:03 +0000 |
Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > > Looks like it's adding up to a pretty compelling case for a read-only > > > "xpathType()" function. > > > > Something like: > > > > Function: string exsl:object-type(object) > > > > The exsl:node-type function returns a string giving the type of the > > object passed as the argument. The possible object types are: > > 'string', 'number', 'boolean', 'node-set' or 'RTF'. > > > > [Note: The description would change in version 1.1 (matching XSLT 1.1) > > to: > > > > The exsl:node-type function returns a string giving the type of the > > object passed as the argument. The possible object types are: > > 'string', 'number', 'boolean', 'node-set' or 'external'.] > > I find this much more compelling than a built-in system of typeconstraints. > Well, you might guess from the fact that I host a W3C XML Schema FAQ [1] that I don't exactly have anything against type constraint systems in general. But I would agree that this is a project of pretty scary scale and complexity, and ideally I would like to see an incremental introduction into XSLT / XPath. For example really I like the idea of doing Part 1 Datatypes first - given that it is relatively uncontroversial and will fulfill a real need, for dates etc - while we get to know Part 2 Structures a bit better. Francis. [1] http://www.schemaValid.com XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] [exsl] Draft 0.1 - call f, Uche Ogbuji | Thread | [xsl] XPath for all of an element t, Michael Strasser |
lang suggestion for XSLT1.1 was Re:, cutlass | Date | Re: [xsl] ANNOUNCE: Petition to wit, Francis Norton |
Month |