Subject: RE: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types in XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 From: bry@xxxxxxxxxx Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:06:42 CET |
> Inadvertently, I am sure, you omitted what Kurt went on to say. I quote it > here for your convenience: > > >I still contend that type doesn't belong in XSLT, but if it is in there, it > >should make processes more efficient, not less. If type needs to be there, > >then all of XSD should be supported, such that an XSLT function can return > >an object of complex type Foo. > > Would you be happy if the XSLT WG went on to heed Kurt's second option and > implemented all of XSD Schema? > I don't know if he'd be happy, I'm sure I wouldn't be happy since I don't want xsdl forced on me, but on the other hand this would be partially doing what I've argued in some other thread long since for the possibility of returning fragments from the schema validation. Since to me an "xml type" would be mostly sensible as a portion of a tree. Of course my arguments was that validation mechanisms should be more abstract, to allow RNG as well, and to just have rules about how a particular processor implemented its particular validation mechanism. The idea being of course that I expected a lot of the smaller processors would not support xsd at all, and opt instead for schematron or RNG. But no-one does anything to make me happy anymore **sniffle** XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types i, Mark Seaborne | Thread | Re: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types i, Kurt Cagle - Olywa |
Re: [xsl] An interesting angle on t, Mike Haarman | Date | Re: [xsl] Using or ignoring Types i, Kurt Cagle - Olywa |
Month |