[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XSLT 2.0 / XPath 2.0 - Assumptions
At 02:33 PM 5/13/2002 -0400, Mike Champion wrote: >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). Yes, this is a valid point. >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. XQuery implementations will not need the more limited types. There may well be a place for them in XML Schema. Once someone can use them in a schema, XQuery has to support them. Jonathan
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|