Subject: RE: [xsl] 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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: [xsl] The Perils of Sudden Type, Gunther Schadow | Thread | RE: [xsl] The Perils of Sudden Type, bryan |
Re: [xsl] The Perils of Sudden Type, Jeni Tennison | Date | RE: [xsl] The Perils of Sudden Type, Martinez, Brian |
Month |