[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions

• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• Date: 13 May 2002 15:01:50 -0400
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020513113107.03cf5400@n...>
• References: <<5.1.0.14.0.20020513111151.03cddba8@n...><1XPOCAZWNKQK43XUXT4XR706PLGAOK.3cdfd29a@MChamp><1XPOCAZWNKQK43XUXT4XR706PLGAOK.3cdfd29a@MChamp><5.1.0.14.0.20020513111151.03cddba8@n...> <5.1.0.14.0.20020513113107.03cf5400@n...>

On Mon, 2002-05-13 at 14:37, Jonathan Robie wrote:
> That's fine as long as all the programs that touch the data know how it was 
> originally intended to be used and treat it correctly. Instead of using a 
> data type, you can now look at your DTD or Schema to see if someone left a 
> comment to tell you whether a date is in MMDDYYYY format or DDMMYYYY 
> format, and then look at all the programs that touch that data to make sure 
> that they interpreted the bytes correctly.

Or you can use tools like Regular Fragmentations to break the lexical
parts down into markup-identifiable and unambiguous day/month/year
elements.  As you said before, "it's in the programming model, but not
in the data that is manipulated."

I don't understand why supporters of strong types seem to feel that
their straitjacket is this year's needed fashion accessory for XML.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• References:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XPath 2.0 - how much of XQuery should it include?
• Next by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Previous by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Next by thread: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread