Subject: Re: [xsl] xslt 2.0 castable as From: David Carlisle <davidc@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 13:16:11 GMT |
> I really don't think for this usage NaN is a usable response, do you. It is (or rather was) reasonable, and in particular consistent with XPath1's string-to-number casting function number() which gives NaN for such a string. But as Mike just replied, it's changed in the current spec to be more like you wanted, and more like XSD validation, so you should be happy now. > 'bout sums up some of my responses to XSLT 2.0 I was going to comment in my first reply that I was surprised to see you (well known for being pleased about all the schema stuff added to XSLT) using casting to XSD types rather than using regexp handling. Mike just said regexp are likely to be more efficient as well... David -- http://www.dcarlisle.demon.co.uk/matthew ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star Internet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk ________________________________________________________________________ XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] xslt 2.0 castable as, David . Pawson | Thread | RE: [xsl] xslt 2.0 castable as, David . Pawson |
RE: [xsl] xslt 2.0 castable as, David . Pawson | Date | [xsl] is it a w3c standard that bro, Sebastian Fey |
Month |