[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: limits of the generic
I wrote: > I think that it would be better to have a consistent approach to > partially ordered data types. One of: > > - creating subtypes that are ordered > - using three-valued logic > - performing an arbitrary conversion to give total ordering but thinking about it, three-valued logic would be hard to do in XPath 2.0, given the requirements of: - backwards compatibility with XPath 1.0 (which treats an empty node set as false) - compatibility with W3C XML Schema data types and therefore xs:boolean, which only has two values: true and false (I guess since I'm arguing against changing the semantics of the W3C XML Schema data types I shouldn't suggest introducing a new xf:boolean primitive data type) I wonder whether an approach similar to that used for comparing strings (i.e. allowing users to specify a particular collation to use) would be a reasonable course of action. Cheers, Jeni --- Jeni Tennison http://www.jenitennison.com/
|
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
|