Subject: RE: [xsl] Static type-checker From: drkm <darkman_spam@xxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:25:59 +0100 (CET) |
Michael Kay wrote: > It's always a good idea to declare the types of > your variables explicitly. I agree. But my problem is a quite more complex. I generate XSLT from personal XML format (with XSLT, indeed). The XML doc can use XPath expressions in some contexts. I generate some variables the XML doc can use. The XML doc can create its own variables (almost shortcuts for clarity of the document). And I don't really like the idea of asking users to declare the type of the variables they create (the view they have of the big picture is really simplified). After having worked on a document, the user runs a transformation in validation mode. The goal is only to detect as more as possible typos (and to discover new features of XPath/XSLT 2.0 from my point of view :-p). Because it's in a testing phase, and that I know the used schemas and the type of the initial variables, I could create an additional transformation to infer myself the type of the user-created variables (maybe in XSLT, but it's quite complex, IMHO). > However, you can expect that Saxon will gradually > get smarter in its checking in future releases. Great! > the use of a path expression like > $list/my:zorglub[1] is not an error Yes I know. But in my case, we know exactly the type of the manipulated elements, and we never have to wrote such an XPath expression (that selects an unknow child of an element, knowing its type). Thanks a lot for all these precisions, --drkm ___________________________________________________________________________ Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger Tilichargez cette version sur http://fr.messenger.yahoo.com
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
RE: [xsl] Static type-checker, Michael Kay | Thread | RE: [xsl] Static type-checker, drkm |
RE: [xsl] Static type-checker, Michael Kay | Date | RE: [xsl] Static type-checker, drkm |
Month |