[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...>,Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...>
• Subject: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:33:57 -0400
• In-reply-to: <5.1.0.14.0.20020513111717.03dcc4e8@n...>

5/13/2002 2:18:32 PM, Jonathan Robie <jonathan.robie@d...> wrote:


>If XML is used as a serialization format for languages that use numerics of 
>fixed size, it is useful to know that you have an instance that will fit in 
>one of these numeric types.

I'm not asserting that there is no rational reason for the distinctions made
by the designers of the XSD types, I'm simply asserting that many are irrelevant
to the needs of the vast majority of XQuery users.  The distinction
between int, long, and short, for example, made perfect sense in a world where
8-bit, 16-bit, and 32-bit machines were all commonplace.  It is now rather
quaint for most of us, and will be a bizarre anachronism in 10 years or so
(when I assume that even cellphones will use 64-bit processors). 

Keep it in XQuery if you insist, but please don't perpetuate the distinction 
in a conformance level of XQuery that attempts to find the 80/20 point.
And if that's not the question on the table, sorry.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
    • From: Alaric Snell <alaric@a...>
  • 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...>

• Prev by Date: Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
• 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