Subject: Re: [xsl] Want to process XHTML in my XSL stylesheets. From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 14:38:17 +0100 |
Mike Kay wrote > but my suspicion is that in most cases the > only type you can deduce for the result tree is "document". I strongly agree (and just said the same to Jonathan Robie on XML-dev) but given that, is there any point in having XPath2 weighed down with all this static typing machinery? It can be moved to Xquery-only without affecting Xquery. Removing that would go some way to restoring usability to Xpath2. Making static typing Xquery-only doesn't do anything to give usability to Xquery, but I've come to the conclusion that Xquery is really just for querying databases, ie extracting relatively small simple chunks from very large data sets, where preoccupation with typing at the expense of usable methods for navigating round a document tree are perhaps more reasonable. 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. XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Want to process XHTML in , Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] Want to process XHTML in , Michael Kay |
Re: [xsl] Typo in FAQ (Was: xsl:var, Joerg Heinicke | Date | [xsl] Sorting Nested Loops, Tyler Queen |
Month |