Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
> By the way, I think the XSLT2 conformance is wrong if it > doesn't include the built-in derived types. Users often don't > understand the type hierarchy, and it promotes the nominal > hierarchy of the built-in types into being something real > whereas it is just a theoretical artifact and something to > help implementors. We had a lot of toing and froing on whether the built-in non-primitives should be included in the basic conformance level. Such decisions are always a bit arbitrary. I've got a personal dislike of many of the derived types - the integer subtypes are horribly hardware-oriented, whereas I think people should use types that relate to the application domain; and the string subtypes are mainly useful if your data happens to have the syntax of XML names, which I would consider unusual (there isn't even a built-in subtype for strings that can't contain spaces, which must be about the most common requirement of all.) So I would tend to say, if you want derived types at all, then you probably want to define your own, which means you're in schema-aware territory. But that's not why they weren't included. It was more a desire to simplify things for users and for implementors. Michael Kay http://www.saxonica.com/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
